Analyzing US Competition Flights

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.

On Mar 14, 5:41*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
John,

HARD DECK:

Sorry for being obscure. The hard deck is a lower limit not an upper
limit. I'm not in favor of an upper limit. Cloud flying is just not a
problem, and wave, thermal wave, etc. are great fun when you can get
them. We need some sense that something is a problem, now, before
passing complex and draconian rules.

The concept is this: there is a set of lower altitude limits, quoted
in MSL, given out in SUA files. They are roughly 500 to 1000 feet
AGL, At Ionia, 1200' MSL might do over the whole task area, and could
just be announced without needing a file. In mountain sites, these are
set by looking at the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out.
Altitudes can be higher over undlandable terrain to discourage low
flight there.

When you hit the hard deck altitude, you're counted as landing out.
From there on in, the race is over -- land out, scratch your way back
up and fly home, it's up to you. Do the safe thing, but forget about
contest points, the race is over for you. And no more of these stall/
spin crashes from thermalling at 200 feet. (Those ARE a problem.)

The navy top gun school does this: If you fall below 10,000', you're
counted as crashing into the ground. But they're a bunch of wussies,
we real pilots keep racing down until we hit the dirt.

The last time the concept was discussed at an SRA meeting the vote was
I believe 39 to 1 against. But, hey, we used to think the rolling
finish one foot over the airport fence was a good idea too. Maybe some
sharp CD will ask for this by waiver and we can see how it works out
(hint hint)

John Cochrane

Really, Really, Really speaking for myself and not the RC this time!
(Last time I counted noses, my fellow RC members were pretty solidly
in the 39 and very tired of hearing about it.)

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

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:18:52 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:

The last time the concept was discussed at an SRA meeting the vote was
I believe 39 to 1 against. But, hey, we used to think the rolling
finish one foot over the airport fence was a good idea too. Maybe some
sharp CD will ask for this by waiver and we can see how it works out
(hint hint)

John Cochrane


Make it 40:1 against. It's just another example of a highly complex solution to a non-problem.

I don't see the fuss over cell phones. So far, my iphone doesn't work
over 1,500' or so, and below that I tend to be busy with other
things.
John Cochrane

Make it 40:1 against. * *It's just another example of a highly complex solution to a non-problem.

It's a simple solution -- at x feet MSL, you've landed out. You need
to read the NTSB reports and look at some traces if you think that
landout damage, stall spin accidents, etc. are not a major problem,
and that low altitude thermaling is not part of it.

But I give up for now -- no point in starting a major kerfuffle that
isn't going anywhere.

John Cochrane

One point of clarification. Current adult penetration of smart phones to all cell phones in the USA is 46% ( http://pewinternet.org/Reports/2012/.../Findings.aspx ). This is actual data as of March 1, 2012. That is not saturation by any person's definition.

However, total cell phone penetration in the USA is 82% of phones to bodies and is fairly stagnate. That works for me as saturation. No use in getting my 2 year old grandniece a phone quite yet....

The above information does indicate that smartphone ownership is moving up quickly. I'm going to bet that the next time the RC does a pole, it will probably get the necessary support to lift the ban. Until then, the rule is in place.
Craig

On 3/14/2012 12:34 PM, Cliff Hilty wrote:
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!

I have to disagree with this. AST was all we had when I started flying,
and the people that beat me did a TON of thinking (or at least half a
ton - full ton generally not needed to beat me). A big feature of the
AST is everyone HAD to round the same turnpoints (and it was a point,
not an area). Also, back then, we got to choose our own launch time!

On a very good day, the race tended to be a "technical" one, with
thermal selection, effective thermalling , and lift area choices being
important. That was a great learning experience, being able to fly with
people like Moffat, Mozer, Striedieck, and many more, and try to emulate
their technical abilities.

On a difficult day, the best pilots knew when to shift gears, when to
backtrack, when to just hang out, when to stick with the gaggle, until
it was possible to get to and around the turnpoint. It was on those days
I learned the most about using soaring weather.

As we shifted to PST and later "open" tasks, it became harder to compare
the technical, weather, and strategic skills, and I gradually lost
interest as flying a contest increasingly became the same as
"opportunistic" (aka "recreational") soaring. Why go to the cost and
effort of a contest, when the flying was the same as what I did all the
time anyway?

One reason, of course, is it's fun to gather together in group for some
serious flying, even if the "race" aspect of it is much reduced, and
that's why I kept at for many years. Eventually, I decided contest
flying was interfering with my soaring, and I gave it up.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 9:40:21 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
I don't see the fuss over cell phones. So far, my iphone doesn't work
over 1,500' or so, and below that I tend to be busy with other
things.
John Cochrane

OK, OK I will lay off the hard ceiling. I agree it is limiting and might leave pilots thousands of feet below usable lift at times. I agree that I have absolutely no experience outside of the Midwest other than Uvalde last summer...but cant wait to try my hand at the wild west soon! The hard floor I like. I think that is covered at current fairly well with the current rules. The 500 ft. violations argument is one that I (will now admit) think is useless, although I felt it should be mentioned.

I have heard of someone related to the RC working on a camera system to look for IMC situations via video playback. I think this is a fantastic idea for major contests where these issues are really important. I hope it is tested. Hard to beat video evidence!

As far as the hard ceiling contest test dummy...I think Ill pass on it for this year. We are just trying to perfect contest management at this point. If your really serious about it...send me an email on how you think should could be approached.

Cell phones, I fully agree, are fairly useless above and normal altitude...and this among other reasons will hopefully soften the general concern about them, data in particular. We should allow people to use them normally and have no worries about it. But as stated above, in general, its going to far.

Best,

Sean

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