JWGC USA update

To Sean's point, what is the #1 objective of our U.S. National contests? If it's to help insure an American winning the World Championships, I might agree we should adopt IGC rules. If it's more complicated than that, then following everyone else may not make sense.

Similarly, is it easier for a pilot who's very good at making his/her own decisions to be good at IGC gaggle flying, or is the reverse true? Some of our most respected and internationally successful pilots have been renowned for their lead-from-the-front, individualistic style he e.g., A.J. Smith, George Moffat, and Doug Jacobs, with 4 world championships among them (without intending to slight anyone else).

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

On Monday, 14 December 2015 14:55:28 UTC-7, wrote:
To Sean's point, what is the #1 objective of our U.S. National contests? If it's to help insure an American winning the World Championships, I might agree we should adopt IGC rules. If it's more complicated than that, then following everyone else may not make sense.

Similarly, is it easier for a pilot who's very good at making his/her own decisions to be good at IGC gaggle flying, or is the reverse true? Some of our most respected and internationally successful pilots have been renowned for their lead-from-the-front, individualistic style he e.g., A.J. Smith, George Moffat, and Doug Jacobs, with 4 world championships among them (without intending to slight anyone else).

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

From the SSA web site - United States Soaring Team pilots are chosen by the Soaring Society of America (SSA) based on recent performance in National and World-level competition. After each of the US Nationals, competitors' scores are compared to the winner's score. The winner of each Nationals receives a score of 100, and the other contestants are ranked relative to the winner's score. The pilot's current year and the best of the two previous years' performance are considered when selecting U.S. Soaring Team members with the current year being weighted more heavily.

U.S. Soaring Team rankings can be very close with only a fraction of a point separating competitors. When U.S. pilots do well in world level contests they earn bonus points that count toward their selection to future US Soaring Teams. The number of team members who represent the United States at a World Soaring Championships is ultimately determined by the World Championship contest organizers and the SSA.

From 2015 National FAI-Class Competition Rulebook -
1.0 GENERAL
1.1 The purpose of a National FAI Class Soaring Championship is to determine a National FAI Class Champion and to measure the performance of all entrants. Performance in Nationals will be used to provide a basis for pilots to qualify for entry into future soaring Championships and to select pilots for the U.S. Team in International Competition

I think you may be confused with my position. I have been stating simple statistical facts on US/SSA tasking and these facts are very comprehensive per my annual report on US tasking proportions.

The USA/SSA has, of late, held roughly 5% (less than 10 task total) assigned tasks annually. That percentage has been shrinking. In fact, assigned tasks are on a trajectory to be zero in 2-3 years in the USA/SSA. The recent Junior Worlds ran roughly 6 assigned tasks in 11 flying days!

The IGC task guidance is 50% timed area tasks and 50% assigned racing tasks for a given competition. On good days, assigned tasks! Area tasks are secondary, assigned are preferred! This ratio was on target per IGC guidance at the Junior Worlds, yes.

The USA/SSA, on the other hand runs almost 70% timed area tasks (average radius 19 miles!). Again, only 5% assigned racing tasks. This is NOTHING like the IGC in my view. The USA, instead, runs their own unique (TIMED) Modified Assigned Tasks (affectionately known by some as the HAT or "half assed task" ;-)) which ranges from the INFAMOUS zero (pure OLC task) to one turn (basically OLC) to the so called "long MAT. Rhe UsA/SSA runs as money or more one and zero turn MATs than assigned racing tasks! The long MAT is designed to eat up almost all of the minimum time but calling the right task length is very difficult to get right. They are often not long enough and require a good deal of decision making at the end of the assigned portion. The problem with the MAT vs the pure Assigned racing Task it is actually extremely complex. Pilot workload is significantly increased. It favors proficiency with flight computers and requires significant heads down time contemplating various TP combination scenarios. It's like a high stakes casino really. You must put all your "chips" on the best additional turnpoints to add before heading to the finish in order to eat up any remaining minimum time. The key moments of the task is usually not the assigned racing portion but is the small fraction of the total task that is left to pilots choice. You can become a hero or a zero in a heartbeat. MATs are very much about calculating timing and playing with the computer to calculate potential options with visable weather. Nothing like the IGC at all.

These unique USA/SSA tasks are all intended to reduce land outs but the unintended consequences are they destroy tactical racing and further isolate the USA from international competition.

I think some of the comments from our junior team reflect this concern.

Sean

On Monday, December 14, 2015 at 9:20:00 PM UTC-6, Sean Fidler wrote:
The recent Junior Worlds ran roughly 6 assigned tasks in 11 flying days!

5 of 10 were assigned. Pretty easy to see this from the task sheets. "Roughly 6 in 11 flying days"? You are better with stats than that, Sean.

Average Area radius for the Club Class was 26.67 KM or 16.56 miles.

The US Team's top place on any day was on an assigned task. Where he was the only finisher. Think this means the assigned tasks were only on "the good days"? Well, three Std class pilots did top 130 KPH on that day, but everyone else was in the low to mid 80s on KPH.

At the last 15/18/Open Worlds, our best daily finish (again a 1st place) was by Dave Mockler on, are you ready for this, an ASSIGNED TASK.

Maybe the type of task flown at our nationals isn't quite as important as the tactics on when to start and who to fly with at the Worlds?

Just a few observations and comments from another who has not (yet) "been there, done that."

Steve Leonard

No, I strongly disagree. My facts are highly accurate (despite being typed from a car and from memory). 5/6 whatever. It's 50% IGC assigned tasks vs 5% (actually, I think it was 3% to be exact) assigned tasks in the USA. No Mats, no Hats whatsoever were run in Australia. I'm not sure how my point could be any more substantiated than that, sir.

I believe that flying the same rules (and therefore the same strategy and tactics), at all US contests, as the rest of the gliding competition world flys (safely and without issue or without mass exodus from the sport because "it is too hard") is important to the USA on many levels. We are embarrassing ourselves when "some" try to argue that our watered down US rules are not having a significant impact on our US team pilots ability to compete effectively at Gliding World Championships. At the same tim, the grand US rules "experiment" is not improving our participation numbers or satisfaction or enjoyment. For many it is in fact quite irritating to be isolated from the rest of the world.... Even our Zias ranking system is entirely different from the rest of the soaring worlds FAI pilot ranking. US pilots results from Us contests are not even added to that list anymore...

The general trend for US rules is continuing to move steadily towards more and more watering down of the tasking with the impossible goal of eliminating land outs or mass land outs. OLC "contests" are being seriously discussed, etc, etc, etc.

There is no reason we can't have fun at US contests (just as the rest of the world does...) while flying IGC rules. This is a general misconception that has led us down a resource intensive path (US rules) that has limited, neutral or negative value to our sport here in the USA. Our numbers are not increasing. "Hey, the tasking is easier now, I'm signing up" but wouldn't do so until this happened...said nobody ever. "Our pilot satisfaction is not demonstrably higher (with many it is lower). Yet we spend tremendous effort and endlessly debate and continuously modify our own unique US gliding competition rules on an annual basis. No rules are perfect. I know everyone means well, but is all this effort really worth the actual measured results? What is the goal for having our own US rules again? Why do we do all this again? Under what circumstances will we stop being the only country on earth up with its own gliding competition rules? Especially vs. the obvious benefits (time, resources, priorities, etc) of being on the same rules page with the rest of the worlds competition soaring community?

Who within the SSA has the power to force all of us US (and Candian) contest pilots to have to fly entirely different rules? Who are the cheerleaders? Who were the architects? Why do we allow this given the current return on investment?

I'll take the IGC rules and put the manpower we spend managing them to other uses which (in my opinion) are far more in need of attention for US soaring. It's like the flat tax. Get rid of the IRS. Simplify. We have a number of great guys on this "problem." who would (in my humble opinion) be far better utilized working on growth or junior soaring or increasing our US clubs cross country skills and culture, etc, etc, etc.

I am happy to get into the finer details but the broad, general policy of wrestling with our own unique US rules (completely isolating us from the rest of the soaring competition world) vs. simply utilizing IGC rules is something that HAS NEVER made any sense to me, whatsoever. I'm continuously baffled by it. Is it just me? No...

I look forward to some honest answers to the questions above...

Sean

No, I strongly disagree. My facts are highly accurate (despite being typed from a car and from memory). 5/6 whatever. It's 50% IGC assigned tasks vs 5% (actually, I think it was 3% to be exact) assigned tasks in the USA. No Mats, no Hats whatsoever were run in Australia. I'm not sure how my point could be any more substantiated than that, sir. ;-)

I believe that flying the same rules (and therefore the same strategy and tactics), at all US contests, as the rest of the gliding competition world uses (safely and without issue or without mass exodus from the sport because "it is too hard") is important to the USA on many levels. We are embarrassing ourselves when "some" try to argue that our watered down US rules are not having a significant impact on our US team pilots ability to compete effectively at FAI Gliding World Championships which are all run under IGC rules (the world standard). At the same time, the grand US rules "experiment" is not improving our participation numbers or satisfaction or enjoyment. For many, it is in fact quite irritating to be isolated from the rest of the world.... Even our own private US ranking system is entirely different from the rest of the soaring worlds FAI pilot ranking. US pilots results from US contests are not even added to that list anymore... Even more isolation.

The general trend for US rules is continuing to move steadily towards more and more watering down of the tasking with the impossible goal of eliminating land outs or mass land outs. OLC "contests" are being seriously discussed, etc, etc, etc.

There is no reason we can't have fun at US contests (just as the rest of the world does...) while flying IGC rules. This is a general misconception that has led us down a resource intensive path (US rules) that has limited, neutral or negative value to our sport here in the USA. Our numbers are not increasing. "Hey, the tasking is easier now, I'm signing up" but wouldn't do so until this happened...said nobody ever. "Our pilot satisfaction is not demonstrably higher (with many it is lower). Yet we spend tremendous effort and endlessly debate and continuously modify our own unique US gliding competition rules on an annual basis. No rules are perfect. I know everyone means well, but is all this effort really worth the actual measured results? What is the goal for having our own US rules again? Why do we do all this again? Under what circumstances will we stop being the only country on earth up with its own gliding competition rules? Especially vs. the obvious benefits (time, resources, priorities, etc) of being on the same rules page with the rest of the worlds competition soaring community?

Who within the SSA has the power to force all of us US (and Candian) contest pilots to have to fly entirely different rules? Who are the cheerleaders? Who were the architects? Why do we allow this given the current return on investment?

I'll take the IGC rules and put the manpower we spend managing them to other uses which (in my opinion) are far more in need of attention for US soaring. It's like the flat tax. Get rid of the IRS. Simplify. We have a number of great guys on this "problem." who would (in my humble opinion) be far better utilized working on growth or junior soaring or increasing our US clubs cross country skills and culture, etc, etc, etc.

I am happy to get into the finer details but the broad, general policy of wrestling with our own unique US rules (completely isolating us from the rest of the soaring competition world) vs. simply utilizing IGC rules is something that HAS NEVER made any sense to me, whatsoever. I'm continuously baffled by it. Is it just me? No...

I look forward to some honest answers to the questions above...

Sean

On Saturday, December 12, 2015 at 1:56:48 AM UTC+11, wrote:
On Friday, December 11, 2015 at 9:41:10 AM UTC-5, Dan Daly wrote:
I'm surprised (but very happy) that they didn't devalue the day with only one completion.

That's the way the international rules are (if enough people make minimum distance to have a day). One reason to fly real IGC rules for Club Class - there are no rule-based surprises.

How about the rule based surprise when it is worth more to land short than to finish? And without a ground based helper how would you know?
UH

This keeps coming up. Which rule exactly are you referring to?

Sean:

Again. (And again, and again, and again): No country uses IGC rules. IGC rules, verbatim, are only applicable for world championships. Start right at entry is by nomination from National Aero Clubs. So how are you going to do entries for US nationals if you "use IGC rules?" Ask the NAC to decide who gets in to Nephi? And go on from there. Stewards, international jury, site selection, so forth. You simply cannot use these, verbatim, for national and regional contests. Every country creates a set of national rules, adapting IGC rules more or less.

Again. And again and again and again: The choice of assigned tasks vs. turn area tasks vs. MATs is completely up to the competition director. IGC rules have fixed proportions of tasks -- resulting in assigned tasks in thunderstorms because we used up the allowed fraction of turn area tasks. US rules do not have any fixed proportions. THIS IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE CD, not the rules. If you want assigned tasks, talk to your CD. Talk to your fellow pilots at nationals and convince them that's what they really want to do.

The clamor for "use IGC rules" would be much reduced if anyone bothered to actually read the rules before clamoring.

John Cochrane

IGC rules have fixed proportions of tasks
No, they don't. They recommend but do not require no more than 2/3rds of one task type.
6.1) TASK TYPES The following task types are available for use during the
Championships. A single task type should not be used for more than 67% of the
Championship Days in each class.
Preliminary Remarks b) In this Annex the words "must", "shall", and "may not" indicate mandatory
requirements; "should" indicates a recommendation; "may" indicates what is
permitted; and "will" indicates what is going to happen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GMkuPiIZ2k

I am not familiar with the US rules, but I do know the IGC rules quite well and they're not the bogeymen they're made out to be. Nor are they perfect - still quite a few step functions left. I would like to see them gone, like Bruce Hoult suggested.

On Wednesday, December 16, 2015 at 2:50:34 PM UTC+11, John Cochrane wrote:
Sean:

Again. (And again, and again, and again): No country uses IGC rules. IGC rules, verbatim, are only applicable for world championships. Start right at entry is by nomination from National Aero Clubs. So how are you going to do entries for US nationals if you "use IGC rules?" Ask the NAC to decide who gets in to Nephi? And go on from there. Stewards, international jury, site selection, so forth. You simply cannot use these, verbatim, for national and regional contests. Every country creates a set of national rules, adapting IGC rules more or less.

Again. And again and again and again: The choice of assigned tasks vs. turn area tasks vs. MATs is completely up to the competition director. IGC rules have fixed proportions of tasks -- resulting in assigned tasks in thunderstorms because we used up the allowed fraction of turn area tasks. US rules do not have any fixed proportions. THIS IS ENTIRELY UP TO THE CD, not the rules. If you want assigned tasks, talk to your CD. Talk to your fellow pilots at nationals and convince them that's what they really want to do.

The clamor for "use IGC rules" would be much reduced if anyone bothered to actually read the rules before clamoring.

John Cochrane

Common John! ;-)

Saying the rules committee has nothing to do with the tasks run at US contests is like saying that the Federal Reserve has nothing to do with inflation, output or employment. Common! Who are you trying to kid?

You guys came up with these experimental task types (only in the USA, even Canada doesn't use HATs). Saying the RC has nothing to do with tasking is just really, really funny when you think about it. Thanks for the chuckle. The purpose of the experiment was to provide CDs a means of providing more more flexibility (lower difficulty) for contest pilots in order to reduce land-outs in unpredictable weather, right? But in reality land-outs have not really decreased all that much. Task challenge and for some overall contest enjoyment has been reduced.

Blame it on the CDs? No. I certainly do not. Talk to the CDs? I do and they have responded to encouragement in some cases. I am thankful for this, but it's only been at nationals really. I'll run the numbers soon. I suspect it was only a 2% increase at best.

Other counties seem to, somehow, run a significant number of assigned tasks at regional level, junior level contests and even junior training camps (and of course roughly 50% at nationals (weather permitting) becuase they are loved by many pilots and simple to manage for beginners. They don't have an enormously higher land out rate. The US runs only 1-2 assigned tasks a year NATIONWIDE at regionals, if we are lucky! A handful more at nationals.. Again, land-out rates are roughly the same.

Many US pilots (and Candian) are no longer excited about US regionals becuase of the silly tasks that are often called. A significant number have entirely stopped planning to attend regionals. Now "we" are even seriously studying the introduction of an OLC task. This will probably further hamper assigned tasks.

I like the idea of the IGC setting a reasonable task ratio standard at the Worlds. Most countries seem to adopt those basic standards in their contests. The US RC needs to inject at least some guidance protecting assigned tasks or we will have none soon.

Look at the turnout for the FAI Sailplane Grand Prix USA (July 2016). We could have had almost 50 entrants if more than 20 were allowed to enter. Some people, perhaps more than you think, still want to to race.

It's incredible how resistant many in SSA leadership roles are to this idea..

Cheerio,

Sean