WGC Uvalde: US Team... What Happened????

I guess if you want to have one of your pilots be World Champion (or at
least stand somewhere on the podium) and are disappointed that with home
advantage it wasn't achieved, you can either shrug you shoulders and say
'all the other pilots were even better', or look for some structural reason
why.

The argument, 'we have a small glider pilot population density, and are
geographically isolated', doesn't stack up when you see how pilots from
South Africa and New Zealand perform.

Regularly flying with a different set of rules is (IMHO) a much more
plausible reason. A Worlds is a learning environment - but not if you
expect to win.

Encouraging a proper Club Class (limited handicap range) is one step
towards getting a wider range of pilots interested in a serious top-level
comp., at affordable cost (if any form of soaring can be categorised as
affordable). And educate your CDs into task setting that causes pilots to
develop the kind of tactical thinking that wins FAI rules competitions.
The US MAT is a cop-out. In UK we manage to use FAI rules in weather that
is just as demanding, without mass landouts except on the days when no sane
pilot would rig if it weren't for the fact some sadistic CD has called
'launch the grid' (I confess, it has been me in the past, but I have also
been a victim)..

And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

Peter:

All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
am

You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
theorizing.

The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
we go.

Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
a few creative ones besides.

This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
time limits, and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
the gaggle like glue.)

No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
we're insane.

Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her.

John Cochrane

On Sep 20, 10:07*am, John Cochrane wrote:
And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

Peter:

*All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
am

You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
theorizing.

The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
we go.

Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
a few creative ones besides.

This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
time limits, *and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
the gaggle like glue.)

No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
we're insane.

Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her.

John Cochrane


"Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her."

IF there is no bias involved. When we dig our heals in, and apply
blinders, not so good.

Hi John

I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.

And I remain unconvinced that a CD that sets a task at 9 a.m and then
doesn't decide to change it until everyone is launched has his eye on the
ball.

In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.

As a CD I have the option of briefing a completely changed task 20 mins
before first launch.

What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?

I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
are prepared to adopt good ideas.

Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live.

Peter

t 19:57 20 September 2012, Mike C wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:07=A0am, John Cochrane wrote:
And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

Peter:

=A0All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
am

You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
theorizing.

The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
we go.

Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
a few creative ones besides.

This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
time limits, =A0and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
the gaggle like glue.)

No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
we're insane.

Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her.

John Cochrane


"Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her."

IF there is no bias involved. When we dig our heals in, and apply
blinders, not so good.

At 03:37 20 September 2012, kirk.stant wrote:
As I remember it, the Area Task was developed to cope with marginal
weather=
conditions that would not allow a safe assigned task to be called. If
it
=
was used that way - on special occasions, with usually only one area
instea=
d of a series of big areas - it would be a useful addition to the CD's
bag
=
of tricks. But recently it has become the task of choice because it is
so
=
easy to call, and takes the pressure off the CD.

Actually not true. An assigned area task AAT is much more difficult to set
than a normal TP racing task. What an AAT does is give the pilots the
opportunity to take advantage of better soaring conditions over a wider
area than would otherwise be the case. As a CD the easy option to set is a
TP racing task (with or without big sectors) AATs require serious thought
to set properly.

On days with a good, uniform forecast, there is only one reason for an
area=
task: you are calling a task for mixed classes and want to give all a
chan=
ce to complete in the time assigned. Again, that should be done with as
fe=
w areas as possible.

Just calling a blanket task with 3 30-mile areas is a total cop out by
the
=
CD.

Again not true, look at the days for which there were AATs in the worlds
and how they worked for those who properly understood them.

As for changing a task in the air, absolute madness, what towering
interllect thought that one up?

Hi John

I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.

Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge
gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic.

In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.

This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes
in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool
for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised
against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the
disaster...

Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes
before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and
launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the
last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather
ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to
have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours!

What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?

It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the
last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in
response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either,
then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a
case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to
have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be
raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the
whole fleet into the storm because of that.


I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
are prepared to adopt good ideas.

Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live.

I'll take you up on that!

Other half? That's generous. :-) The US does not represent half of the soaring World last I looked. Try the other 98% of the world that uses IGC rules (AND CLASSES). IGC/FAI is completely dominant. Only the US utilizes different rules. The US communicates, indirectly but clearly, that the rest of the world is wrong, dangerous, start gate roulette, will have poor attendance, lots of land outs, etc. IMO we have alot of roulette in US contests. Its not as noticeable because our contests are fairly small in comparison the very large, weaker conditioned European events.

The crowded start problem at the recent World Championship (just as with the low finishing glider that hit the truck) is an anomaly that should be addressed within IGC/FAI rules. The US does not need separate rules. If we must make changes, the US could modify the FAI/IGC rules slightly. Nothing is perfect, but is IGC/FAI so bad that we fight it off like a flaming beast in the night and hide in our castle? What are we (SSA) so afraid of again?

Why cant we all just get along, have fun and play the same game? It's so confusing for any US pilot who aspires to be a World level pilot. Its a massive hurdle. I think it is really frustrating to have no choice. I think each contest manager should have, at minimum, the choice to run FAI. I don't like having this issue decided for me by the SSA as a young american pilot with some lofty goals.

We are sitting in a bubble in the US! We have no disorders, just big phobia of germs. :-)

Allow me to kid a bit without everyone flaming out...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bubble_Boy_(film)



On Thursday, September 20, 2012 7:07:06 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
Hi John



I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start

originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.



Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge

gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic.



In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the

variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10

minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.



This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes

in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool

for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised

against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the

disaster...



Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes

before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and

launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the

last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather

ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to

have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours!



What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't

be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?



It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the

last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in

response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either,

then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a

case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to

have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be

raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the

whole fleet into the storm because of that.





I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and

are prepared to adopt good ideas.



Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live..



I'll take you up on that!

On Sep 20, 7:07*pm, John Cochrane wrote:
Hi John

I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.

Good! Now let's persuade the IGC, which banned this for Uvalde. Huge
gaggles in the clouds at Szeged was idiotic.

In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.

This is also by far the most common situation in the US. Task changes
in the air are avoided if at all possible. They are a last ditch tool
for a CD to remedy a looming disaster, but CDs are strongly advised
against it if at all possible. Still, it's nice to avoid the
disaster...

Our contests try to launch everyone in 1 hour, and wait 15 minutes
before gate open. We also require 15 minutes between task change and
launch. So, the decision to open the task is at least 1:30 after the
last chance to change the task on the ground. Often, weather
ucertainty means that the start is delayed further. So it's easy to
have two hours pass. The weather can change a lot in two hours!

What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?

It happens rarely. Once to me when I was leading the contest on the
last day. Fortunately I heard the task change, rocked my wings in
response to radio call and it was passed on. If you can't hear either,
then you can't hear when the start gate is opened. I don't know of a
case of that happening yet. But it is the pilot's responsibility to
have a radio. If the roll call goes through, and the pilot can't be
raised on multiple tries, tough for him. We're not going to send the
whole fleet into the storm because of that.



I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
are prepared to adopt good ideas.

Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live..

I'll take you up on that!

John, actually I participated in a contest were 2 days in a row new
tasks were given in the air and not because of thunderstorms. This
rule just enables a not so smart CD to be really stupid just because
he is also lazy. Luckily 90% of contests do not have tasks set while
pilots are in the air, but when I see one done again that might be a
reason for me to quick contest flying.

If you ask me if I want to stay alive or lose a day I would say I want
to stay alive! This rule has no place in our competitions. We can
program many tasks into our computers. Have 5 dump tasks but do not
force people to put heads into the instruments in such high glider
density area as start cylinder.

John, your safety approach is not consistent. On one side you say we
need minimum finish height because we can't trust pilots not to put
themselves in dangerous situations but on the other hand you give a CD
a way to put all pilots in a dangerous situation.

As for changing a task in the air, absolute madness, what towering

interllect thought that one up?

Charlie Spratt did it all the time and his task calls were top-notch.

John, your safety approach is not consistent. On one side you say we

need minimum finish height because we can't trust pilots not to put

themselves in dangerous situations but on the other hand you give a CD

a way to put all pilots in a dangerous situation.


Now you did it!! You had to bring up the finish height debacle!! Here we go.