Analyzing US Competition Flights

Speaking of hijacking, you guys have hijacked this thread. Take it
outside.

For the record, though, while the OLC is a justifiably popular form of
competition, it's not racing in the classic head-to-head fashion.
Technically, sanctioned contests are not all head-to-head racing,
either, as whenever an area-type task is called. But at least we all
launch from the same location and mostly return there having flown in
the same geographical envelope and overall weather system. Such is not
the case with the OLC, as innovative and challenging as it is.

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

On Mar 13, 7:32*pm, Chip Bearden wrote:
Speaking of hijacking, you guys have hijacked this thread. Take it
outside.

For the record, though, while the OLC is a justifiably popular form of
competition, it's not racing in the classic head-to-head fashion.
Technically, sanctioned contests are not all head-to-head racing,
either, as whenever an area-type task is called. But at least we all
launch from the same location and mostly return there having flown in
the same geographical envelope and overall weather system. Such is not
the case with the OLC, as innovative and challenging as it is.

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

Chip,

If I may come back inside for a moment. I think you just hit the nail
on the head with this post. I do not claim that OLC is a competition/
race between everyone posting flights on a particular day. I am
suggesting that the OLC traces posted by the group of guys I fly with,
that take off, and hopefully land back at the same place, are "racing"
and in "competition" with each other.

Kirk is right; although I do not fly out of NM, where I do fly is in
the mountains and yes we do get high and yes we do go far, and no, to
claim that I beat someone flying in conditions lacking such veracity
would not be accurate. In the context of a group of guys flying from a
common location, I posit that racing can take place without it being
sanctioned or requiring entry fees and 2 weeks of vacation in order to
participate.

And Herb.............come out west, fly the peaks with us.

Brad

On Mar 13, 11:19*pm, Brad wrote:
If I may come back inside for a moment. I think you just hit the nail
on the head with this post. I do not claim that OLC is a competition/
race between everyone posting flights on a particular day. I am
suggesting that the OLC traces posted by the group of guys I fly with,
that take off, and hopefully land back at the same place, are "racing"
and in "competition" with each other.
SNIP
In the context of a group of guys flying from a
common location, I posit that racing can take place without it being
sanctioned or requiring entry fees and 2 weeks of vacation in order to
participate.

Let's put this to bed so we can argue about smart phones.

Think of "classic" assigned-task racing as being at one end of the
competition continuum (all pilots flying the same task at the same
time). And think of the OLC at the other end (pilots flying wherever
they want at different times). The various forms of area tasks called
at today's sanctioned contests are close to but not precisely at the
same point as the assigned task because, while all pilots launch from
the same location and fly in the same task area, they do not
necessarily fly the same course. But that's still pretty close to
classic head-to-head racing.

I don't think anyone would disagree that a bunch of guys launching
from a common airport the same day who agree to fly the same informal
task (sometimes called ahead of time, more often after everyone
launches, and sometimes on a turnpoint-by-turnpoint basis by whomever
is out ahead) are racing.

Another variation, edging still further from the assigned task
endpoint, is the concept of the Governor's Cup season-long series here
in the NJ-PA-NY-DE area that was written up a while ago and promoted
by Erik Mann. Pilots launching from different points (mostly
gliderports) fly the same course (set around those points); you can
enter the course from any point and fly in either direction. A pilot's
best three days count towards the overall results. They don't all fly
from the same launch point nor do they all fly the same days or in the
same weather. But they do fly the same course...sort of: there are
optional turnpoints for good days and a south course and north course
to accommodate a couple of operations up in NY state. I think most, if
not all, of the competition pilots (myself included) who compete for
the Cup consider it to be a form of racing, although pilots who can
take off during the week to grab the best days tend to tilt things
slightly more towards the OLC model. On a good weekend day, it
resembles the "let's all fly a task today" pickup contest model except
we can all fly from our usual airports without having to trailer in.

All points on this continuum are valid forms of competition. The
closer you get to the classic assigned task model, however, the easier
it is to refer to it as head-to-head racing, where I (like Kirk and
many others) like to measure myself against other pilots over the same
ground under the same conditions. It doesn't mean one point on this
continuum is better than another, but they are all different.

You could also compare other attributes on this same continuum: % of
the soaring day used is much higher for the OLC, for example, and
probably also the % of completion (not having to land out). Average
speed is higher for the racing end of the continuum, all things being
equal. I'm not going to touch "fun factor" here because that's in the
eye of the beholder.

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

On Tuesday, March 13, 2012 7:09:47 PM UTC-5, Brad wrote:

Definition of "Race":

Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc., to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at covering a set course or achieving an objective.


Hey Herb, I'm old enough to have grandkids and I sure as hell am not a
PC hack, so understand that racing is for those who wanna race, and
OLC is for those who wanna race.
You guys have hijacked the term "race" like the gays have hijacked the
word "gay".

Brad
(almost forgot to add respectfully)

Not an English Major, obviously. Please read and attempt to comprehend the definition of a race, posted above for your edification.

It's actually you OLC guys who have hijacked the term "race"!

And now, back to your regular programming...

Kirk
66

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

Although I enjoy OLC more than traditional racing, I have to agree with Kirk on this one. I would also posit that the only "real" race is an assigned task where all competitors fly the same course round defined turnpoints. Once you permit pilot-assigned turnpoints (AAT and MAT), the race has essentially become OLC light.

As an ex sailboat racer, I believe that the best races also require all competitors to start simultaneously - Grand Prix style.

Mike

On Mar 14, 8:39*am, Mike the Strike wrote:
*Once you permit pilot-assigned turnpoints (AAT and MAT), the race has essentially become OLC light.


Mike - While I don't disagree with your attitude, I cringe at your
characterization of AAT tasks... In an AAT (or MAT), the pilots are
still launching within an hour of each other and flying in (generally)
the same airmass. By contrast, here's a typical OLC "task" [with my
tongue firmly planted in my cheek]:

OLC 2012, Day 74
-----
GRID TIME: *after sunrise*
LAUNCH TIME: *after grid*
START: *near an airfield of some sort, and don't take too long of a
tow*
TP1: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
TP2: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
TP3: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
TP4: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
TP5: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
FINISH: 00:00.000N, 000:00.000W, Radius 3964 miles
-----

:-)

--Noel
(who really likes the OLC, but doesn't consider a 500km flight in
Germany and a 500km flight in the US comparable achievements - even on
the same day)

At 13:09 14 March 2012, kirk.stant wrote:


Noun: A competition between runners, horses, vehicles, boats, etc.,
to see which is the fastest in covering a set course.

Verb: Compete with another or others to see who is fastest at
covering a set course or achieving an objective.



Not an English Major, obviously. Please read and attempt to comprehend
the
definition of a race, posted above for your edification.

It's actually you OLC guys who have hijacked the term "race"!

And now, back to your regular programming...

Kirk
66



This is just a rehash of the same argument we had when the PST or POST was
used in racing. It really comes down to what you are measuring in a "Race".
In the AST we are measuring speed over distance and thermalling ability. In
a PST we add to that course choices, weather, and rules interpretation. I
had this argument with a National rated pilot and what we came up with is
that the same people won regardless of the task type. But some just don't
like racing in that way. Admittedly the easiest, while not being
necessarily the fairest would be to race a one class glider and do a AST,
no thinking just fly fast!

CH

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

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