USA 2010 Competition Rules Committee Minutes Posted

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 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

There is a scenario I can't quite figure under the new rule. *Say ALL
the finishers are MT15 and very short distances but a bunch of pilots
were able to rack up long distances but not get home. This can happen
with big weather systems moving through. The choice you have is stay
close to home so you can finish and risk a short flight or follow the
good conditions on the chance that you'll be able to get back home
later. I think under the new rules you might make the bet that none of
the long flights finish, but if even one of them succeeds it radically
changes the scoresheet because all the short finishers see their
scores cut down dramatically as BESTDIST goes dramatically up. Also
all the long non-finishers would see their scores go up if even one of
them gets home. It also potentially gets tangled up in devaluation
depending on the ratios.

I guess versus the old system it gives you some additional incentive
to be the hero and get around on a long flight even in dicey
conditions.

Any insights?

9B

That's pretty much right.

Important note: In US rules, when there are any "finishers", BESTDIST
is still calculated as the best distance a finisher achieves. BESTDIST
does not reflect very long landouts. Thus, if the "finishers" go 100
miles, but some other guys all go 400 miles and land out, BESTDIST is
still 100 miles. The long landouts still only get 100 miles of
distance points. This is a separate problem, which maybe we'll think
about fixing someday, or maybe not. (Changing that to BESTDIST = the
long landout leads to another can of worms in terms of unintended
clever strategies.) One at a time, this is confusing enough!

The new rule only changes the scores of very short "finishers" when
there are other faster finishers. That's a good principle to keep in
mind. For example, it does not change the scores of your long landouts
above, nor of the 400 mile guys if one of them makes it home.

The only change is, a slow finisher is guaranteed the best of HIS
distance points or his speed points, whereas he used to be guaranteed
the best BESTDIST distance points, or his speed points. That's it.

What happens then is pretty much what you describe. If none of the
400 mile guys make it back, the 100 mile guys win the day, and the 400
mile guys ony get distance points as if they flew 100 miles. (And the
day will be strongly devalued).

If one of the 400 mile guys squeaks back to the airport, under old
rules the 100 mile "finishers" would have gotten 630 points, equal to
a 399 mile landout. Under the new rule the 100 mile "finishers" will
get 100/400*600 + 30 = 180 points, just as if they had landed out at
an airport at 100 miles, plus 5 points extra.

So, as you describe, the change does not guarantee that going longer
will win the day. But it does rather substantially increase the odds
that going longer will pay off. If you make it back after going
longer, you'll destroy the scores of the 100 mile guys. If you landout
at 399 but someone else goes 400 miles and makes it back, then your
399 mile landout will be worth 599 (+25) points, and you will destroy
the 100 mile guys.

This is an important strategic consideration that pilots need to be
aware of. Keeping going under a TAT / MAT rather than stopping very
early--say 1 -2 hours into a 3 hour task--is now a much more
attractive option. It's almost back to the way you would have thought
about it under an AST, where you would not stop and land at an airport
along the way unless things were really pretty desperate. It's not
quite that much. There is still a bit stronger incentive to cut short
a TAT/MAT than an AST because, as you describe, you can gamble that
nobody goes longer and makes it back. But that gamble faces longer
odds than it used to.

I don't think of this as a "change" I think of it as "fixing an
uninteded bug in the rules." We were happy with the tradeoffs pilots
were making under AST regarding stopping at an airport or keeping
going. When we ported the scoring formulas to TAT/MAT, as I view it,
we inadvertently opened this clever strategy to go back after 1 hour
and guarantee yourself 630 points even if the winners do 400 miles.
Loophole now closed.

John Cochrane
BB

On Dec 17, 11:33*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
There is a scenario I can't quite figure under the new rule. *Say ALL
the finishers are MT15 and very short distances but a bunch of pilots
were able to rack up long distances but not get home. This can happen
with big weather systems moving through. The choice you have is stay
close to home so you can finish and risk a short flight or follow the
good conditions on the chance that you'll be able to get back home
later. I think under the new rules you might make the bet that none of
the long flights finish, but if even one of them succeeds it radically
changes the scoresheet because all the short finishers see their
scores cut down dramatically as BESTDIST goes dramatically up. Also
all the long non-finishers would see their scores go up if even one of
them gets home. It also potentially gets tangled up in devaluation
depending on the ratios.

I guess versus the old system it gives you some additional incentive
to be the hero and get around on a long flight even in dicey
conditions.

Any insights?

9B

That's pretty much right.

Important note: In US rules, when there are any "finishers", BESTDIST
is still calculated as the best distance a finisher achieves. BESTDIST
does not reflect very long landouts. Thus, if the "finishers" go 100
miles, but some other guys all go 400 miles and land out, BESTDIST is
still 100 miles. The long landouts still only get 100 miles of
distance points. This is a separate problem, which maybe we'll think
about fixing someday, or maybe not. (Changing that to BESTDIST = the
long landout leads to another can of worms in terms of unintended
clever strategies.) One at a time, this is confusing enough!

The new rule only changes the scores of very short "finishers" when
there are other faster finishers. That's a good principle to keep in
mind. For example, it does not change the scores of your long landouts
above, nor of the 400 mile guys if one of them makes it home.

The only change is, a slow finisher is guaranteed the best of HIS
distance points or his speed points, whereas he used to be guaranteed
the best BESTDIST distance points, or his speed points. That's it.

What *happens then is pretty much what you describe. If none of the
400 mile guys make it back, the 100 mile guys win the day, and the 400
mile guys ony get distance points as if they flew 100 miles. (And the
day will be strongly devalued).

If one of the 400 mile guys squeaks back to the airport, under old
rules the 100 mile "finishers" would have gotten 630 points, equal to
a 399 mile landout. Under the new rule the 100 mile "finishers" will
get 100/400*600 + 30 = 180 points, just as if they had landed out at
an airport at 100 miles, plus 5 points extra.

So, as you describe, the change does not guarantee that going longer
will win the day. But it does rather substantially increase the odds
that going longer will pay off. If you make it back after going
longer, you'll destroy the scores of the 100 mile guys. If you landout
at 399 but someone else goes 400 miles and makes it back, then your
399 mile landout will be worth 599 (+25) points, and you will destroy
the 100 mile guys.

This is an important strategic consideration that pilots need to be
aware of. Keeping going under a TAT / MAT rather than stopping very
early--say 1 -2 hours into a 3 hour task--is now a much more
attractive option. It's almost back to the way you would have thought
about it under an AST, where you would not stop and land at an airport
along the way unless things were really pretty desperate. It's not
quite that much. *There is still a bit stronger incentive to cut short
a TAT/MAT than an AST because, as you describe, you can gamble that
nobody goes longer and makes it back. But that gamble faces longer
odds than it used to.

I don't think of this as a "change" I think of it as "fixing an
uninteded bug in the rules." We were happy with the tradeoffs pilots
were making under AST regarding stopping at an airport or keeping
going. When we ported the scoring formulas to TAT/MAT, as I view it,
we inadvertently opened this clever strategy to go back after 1 hour
and guarantee yourself 630 points even if the winners do 400 miles.
Loophole now closed.

John Cochrane
BB

John, thanks for the pointer to the poll - after some head-scratching
I finally figured out the proposed scoring column for the examples
shown. Now all I have to do is completely re-write the talk I'm doing
at the SSA convention. Adding insult to injury, I tried to give this
talk at last year's convention, but the scheduling guru couldn't fit
it in. Had that happened, I would have been safely out of town before
the rules got changed ;-).

Timing is everything ....

TA

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

On Dec 17, 8:33*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
There is a scenario I can't quite figure under the new rule. *Say ALL
the finishers are MT15 and very short distances but a bunch of pilots
were able to rack up long distances but not get home. This can happen
with big weather systems moving through. The choice you have is stay
close to home so you can finish and risk a short flight or follow the
good conditions on the chance that you'll be able to get back home
later. I think under the new rules you might make the bet that none of
the long flights finish, but if even one of them succeeds it radically
changes the scoresheet because all the short finishers see their
scores cut down dramatically as BESTDIST goes dramatically up. Also
all the long non-finishers would see their scores go up if even one of
them gets home. It also potentially gets tangled up in devaluation
depending on the ratios.

I guess versus the old system it gives you some additional incentive
to be the hero and get around on a long flight even in dicey
conditions.

Any insights?

9B

That's pretty much right.

Important note: In US rules, when there are any "finishers", BESTDIST
is still calculated as the best distance a finisher achieves. BESTDIST
does not reflect very long landouts. Thus, if the "finishers" go 100
miles, but some other guys all go 400 miles and land out, BESTDIST is
still 100 miles. The long landouts still only get 100 miles of
distance points. This is a separate problem, which maybe we'll think
about fixing someday, or maybe not. (Changing that to BESTDIST = the
long landout leads to another can of worms in terms of unintended
clever strategies.) One at a time, this is confusing enough!

The new rule only changes the scores of very short "finishers" when
there are other faster finishers. That's a good principle to keep in
mind. For example, it does not change the scores of your long landouts
above, nor of the 400 mile guys if one of them makes it home.

The only change is, a slow finisher is guaranteed the best of HIS
distance points or his speed points, whereas he used to be guaranteed
the best BESTDIST distance points, or his speed points. That's it.

What *happens then is pretty much what you describe. If none of the
400 mile guys make it back, the 100 mile guys win the day, and the 400
mile guys ony get distance points as if they flew 100 miles. (And the
day will be strongly devalued).

If one of the 400 mile guys squeaks back to the airport, under old
rules the 100 mile "finishers" would have gotten 630 points, equal to
a 399 mile landout. Under the new rule the 100 mile "finishers" will
get 100/400*600 + 30 = 180 points, just as if they had landed out at
an airport at 100 miles, plus 5 points extra.

So, as you describe, the change does not guarantee that going longer
will win the day. But it does rather substantially increase the odds
that going longer will pay off. If you make it back after going
longer, you'll destroy the scores of the 100 mile guys. If you landout
at 399 but someone else goes 400 miles and makes it back, then your
399 mile landout will be worth 599 (+25) points, and you will destroy
the 100 mile guys.

This is an important strategic consideration that pilots need to be
aware of. Keeping going under a TAT / MAT rather than stopping very
early--say 1 -2 hours into a 3 hour task--is now a much more
attractive option. It's almost back to the way you would have thought
about it under an AST, where you would not stop and land at an airport
along the way unless things were really pretty desperate. It's not
quite that much. *There is still a bit stronger incentive to cut short
a TAT/MAT than an AST because, as you describe, you can gamble that
nobody goes longer and makes it back. But that gamble faces longer
odds than it used to.

I don't think of this as a "change" I think of it as "fixing an
uninteded bug in the rules." We were happy with the tradeoffs pilots
were making under AST regarding stopping at an airport or keeping
going. When we ported the scoring formulas to TAT/MAT, as I view it,
we inadvertently opened this clever strategy to go back after 1 hour
and guarantee yourself 630 points even if the winners do 400 miles.
Loophole now closed.

John Cochrane
BB

Just to clarify, is BESTDIST the longest distance of any finisher or
the distance of the fastest finisher? I think it's a pretty big
difference.

9B

On Dec 18, 5:33*am, John Cochrane
wrote:
The only change is, a slow finisher is guaranteed the best of HIS
distance points or his speed points, whereas he used to be guaranteed
the best BESTDIST distance points, or his speed points. That's it.

Is it maybe time to retire the separate concepts of speed points and
distance points? IN particular, wouldn't it be better if outlanders
got credit for speed too?

As far as i can see, the only reason not to is the practical one that
in the old days there was no evidence of exactly when an outlanding
was made, making it impossible to reliably calculate speed to that
point.

In these days of GPS traces that is no longer true.

It's 01:40 here and I only gave this a few minute's thought, but I
can't immedately see major unfairness in the following proposal:

raw points = S * (D - L/2)

Whe

D = the scoring distance as defined by the task rules
L = the distance from the landing point to the finish line (0 for
finishers)
S = speed achieved over the scoring distance

The raw points could be simply kept as is and totaled up over the
contest (this would devalue bad days in a natural way), or the maximum
could be scaled to 1000 or some lesser value according to existing day
devaluation rules.

This seems to me to have the following nice characteristics:

- if you fly the same distance as someone else then it's better to do
it faster, regardless of whether you both complete the task or both
land out at the same place.

- if you achieve the same speed as someone else then it's better to
maintain that speed over a longer distance.

- speeds tend to have a fairly small spread on a given day (except for
those who spend a long time on a low save), so the preferred method to
more points is more distance.

- the penalty for landing out just short of the airfield is very
small, reducing the incentive to try to stretch and just scrape over
the fence.

- once you stop making forward progress it's better to land out
promptly than to waste a lot of time scratching at low level. This may
be true even in the case of an eventual save. (I'd have to run the
figures)

- if faced with a long, slow, skinny, final glide it may in fact be
better to fly quickly to a good outlanding area that you can reach
easily. (once again I'd have to run the figures)

- distance flown away from home counts for half, distance towards home
counts for 1.5x. If you're going to land after 100 miles it's better
to do it out and return than straight out.


What do you think? Totally stupid? Perverse and unsafe incentives I
didn't notice? Too complex?

I'm certainly prepared to debate whether that "2" is the right value.
For sure the number needs to be bigger than 1, otherwise a straight
out task is worth zero.

I also wondered about a slight variation:

raw points = (D^2 - (L^2)/2) / T

Where T is the flight time.

This is less different than it first appears. S = D/T, so the first
version can also be given as:

raw points = (D/T) * (D - L/2) = (D^2 - DL/2) / T

This is the same in the event of a straight out flight but the
alternative version penalises landouts near home relatively much less
after a long flight than after a short one.

Just to clarify, is BESTDIST the longest distance of any finisher or
the distance of the fastest finisher? I think it's a pretty big
difference.

9B

11.6.9 Best Distance:
If there are no Finishers, BESTDIST is the greatest scored distance
achieved by any pilot.
Otherwise, BESTDIST is the larger of the greatest scored distance
achieved by any Finisher and (BESTSPD * MINTIME).

Is it maybe time to retire the separate concepts of speed points and
distance points? IN particular, wouldn't it be better if outlanders
got credit for speed too?

As far as i can see, the only reason not to is the practical one that
in the old days there was no evidence of exactly when an outlanding
was made, making it impossible to reliably calculate speed to that
point.

In these days of GPS traces that is no longer true.

It's 01:40 here and I only gave this a few minute's thought, but I
can't immedately see major unfairness in the following proposal:

raw points = S * (D - L/2)

Whe

D = the scoring distance as defined by the task rules
L = the distance from the landing point to the finish line (0 for
finishers)
S = speed achieved over the scoring distance

The raw points could be simply kept as is and totaled up over the
contest (this would devalue bad days in a natural way), or the maximum
could be scaled to 1000 or some lesser value according to existing day
devaluation rules.

This seems to me to have the following nice characteristics:

- if you fly the same distance as someone else then it's better to do
it faster, regardless of whether you both complete the task or both
land out at the same place.

- if you achieve the same speed as someone else then it's better to
maintain that speed over a longer distance.

- speeds tend to have a fairly small spread on a given day (except for
those who spend a long time on a low save), so the preferred method to
more points is more distance.

- the penalty for landing out just short of the airfield is very
small, reducing the incentive to try to stretch and just scrape over
the fence.

- once you stop making forward progress it's better to land out
promptly than to waste a lot of time scratching at low level. This may
be true even in the case of an eventual save. (I'd have to run the
figures)

- if faced with a long, slow, skinny, final glide it may in fact be
better to fly quickly to a good outlanding area that you can reach
easily. (once again I'd have to run the figures)

- distance flown away from home counts for half, distance towards home
counts for 1.5x. If you're going to land after 100 miles it's better
to do it out and return than straight out.

What do you think? Totally stupid? Perverse and unsafe incentives I
didn't notice? Too complex?

I'm certainly prepared to debate whether that "2" is the right value.
For sure the number needs to be bigger than 1, otherwise a straight
out task is worth zero.

I also wondered about a slight variation:

raw points = (D^2 - (L^2)/2) / T

Where T is the flight time.

This is less different than it first appears. S = D/T, so the first
version can also be given as:

raw points = (D/T) * (D - L/2) *= *(D^2 - DL/2) / T

This is the same in the event of a straight out flight but the
alternative version penalises landouts near home relatively much less
after a long flight than after a short one.

The main problem I see is that "speed to landout" can encourage you to
dive to the dirt, and needs a major calculation to figure out when
that's the right thing to do. At least my landouts seem to be preceded
by a half hour of grinding away in half knot lift at 1000 feet. (And
too many of my contest flights are interrupted by a half hour of
griding away in half knot lift!). A pilot gets a lot more points in
this system if he gives up and lands right away.

Maybe the answer then that the scoring program should evaluate every
possible "end of the flight" and give you the one with the most
points. For example, 80 mph to 90 miles is better than the eventual 50
mph to 95 miles where you eventually land. But that seems pretty
complicated, and still leaves some hard strategizing for the pilot on
when it's worth stopping to work weak lift.

This is worth thinking about. Our points formulas are horribly
complex, but every good idea for simplfying them hits a brick wall on
how do you treat landouts vs. speed.

Maybe zero points for landout, but you can drop your worst day?

Well, the other problem is that we've built up a lot of experience
with the current system, so radical changes are dangerous.

John Cochrane