2009 Proposed US Contest Rules Changes

On Jan 9, 11:57�am, wrote:
On Jan 9, 8:43�am, wrote:





On Jan 9, 9:30�am, Andy wrote:

I see no reason why a pilot that chooses to exit from the back of the
cylinder cannot work any gaggle on route to the first turnpoint. �Why
does joining a gaggle in the vicinity of the start have a higher risk
than joining one on course?

Traffic density near top of gate/cloud base, for starters. �There's
also the issue of blending on course traffic with pre-start traffic.

From my point of view, the potential increase in opposing traffic near
cloud base/top of gate would justify the rule by itself. �More
broadly, the rules strategy seems to be to take the incentive for
competitive flying out of the gate area and move it out on course
where it belongs.

-T8

I'm still trying to work out in my mind how going with a 50% smaller
start area DEcreases traffic density. I think the only relevant
scenarios here are ones where you can start out the top of the
cylinder - but can't climb high enough to clear the edge of the
cylinder. That means the top of useable lift has to be within around
1,500' of MSH. Lower than that and pilots will find thermals closer to
the edge of the cylinder or start out the side. Higher than that and
any thermals you hit post-start will be with gliders that also have
already started, which is basically indistinguishable from entering a
thermal 5 miles out on course. That wouldn't appear to me to happen
all that often and the CD could certainly try to avoid setting MSH
close to the forecast top of lift.

TT made the point that even with the proposed modification you still
have 5 miles of radius to find a great start thermal that's somehow
lined up with a gaggle on your intended course line. I don't think I
can reliably see a glider from more than 5 miles away anyway so I
don't think offering the full cylinder will do much to increase
instances of people trying to do this in a premeditated way. I think
it's safe to say that the main scenario is someone starting out the
top who suddenly sees a gaggle along the way.

BB made the point that some pilots may elect to start from behind the
arc where they get distance credit if there's a good thermal to be had
since they can still get a legitimate start. They will just fly a mile
or two without getting credit for it. I'm thinking that would only
really make sense it the lift were really awesome (to save the lost
two minutes of on-course time you'd need to climb the fifteen hundred
feet at 15 knots rather than at 5 knots for example), or you might do
it if you were a dedicated pre-start gaggle bumper (the advantage here
seems minimal - I don't think I can save 2 minutes - or 1 minute by
bumping gaggles). In either case it would mean the rule change wasn't
very effective.

I get that the very back of the cylinder narrows a bit and so starters
from way back there would tend to overfly the middle of the cylinder.
I also get that traffic can fan out a bit on course - particularly if
you have a short first leg with a very big turn area. But a 10-mile
diameter start cylinder is pretty darn big - so the amount of fan-out
on course seems to be small for most TATs and all ASTs and MATs with a
first turn specified.

My perception is that a factor in gaggling is pilots who wait for the
post-start radio calls of other pilots and start right after them.
Under the old rule you had a good sense of where they'd be because the
optimal start point was at the edge of the cylinder near course line.
Under the original start anywhere rule a starter could be anywhere in
a 10 mile distance along course line and was a lot less likely to be
near MSH if the lift was going higher, so it became pretty hard to
time your start to reliably make a marker out of another pilot. Under
the modified rule it may become a more manageable strategy.

9B- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes, making the circle 50 percent smaller does not decrease
density. But, the circumference of just the half outside circle is
15.7079 miles. The area of the half circle is 39.269908 square miles
(based on a 5 mile radius). I do agree that this will help stop
leeching, spread folks out, yet will make the start more luck prone to
those who get lucky in finding a strong thermal within the start
cylinder and wish to start out the top. It has not stopped the
prestart competition for the best start. Those who launch last will
have a disadvange on certain days due to with the old start rules,
they knew where to look for the prestart gaggles. Now, launching last
will not give the opportunity to search the start cylinder for the
bigger climbs that earlier starters have found. Of course, the launch
does rotate, but some will again have better luck than others.
The issue still remains. A rule has been made which is flawed
to begin with. Any justifacation attemp towards a flawed rule is
flawed in itself. All turn areas are designed to be turned in at any
point, now is not the case. Any start within a start defined area
should not result in a point decrease if any entrant chooses to turn
anywhere within a defined turn area. An entrant should not get less
points for airmanship he thinks is the best for him/her at that time.
What's bothersome is for those who don't understand this could receive
less points and will never know what has occured.
The argument can be made that all entrants should read and
understand the rules as written. But when a rule is written which
becomes complex and goes against what the wishes of the rules
committee are, as describe by the post of BB, then the SSA directors
should be contacted to inform them as to what they are voting on (some
board members are not current entrants). I know that the rules
committee members will also inform the directors at the SSA general
meeting coming up, of what these posts have discussed, before the
directors vote on this new rule. At least one rules committee member
is a director and whom I highly respect. I have full faith that these
posts have brought up areas to think about and that this will be gone
over at the SSA meeting before its voted on by the directors.

Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe, #711

On Jan 9, 12:48*pm, wrote:
snip Those who launch last will
have a disadvange on certain days due to with the old start rules,
they knew where to look for the prestart gaggles. Now, launching last
will not give the opportunity to search the start cylinder for the
bigger climbs that earlier starters have found. Of course, the launch
does rotate, but some will again have better luck than others.

Interesting point Tom. That is something we can actually measure by
looking at flight logs to see what the distribution of first climbs is
in 2007 versus 2008. I certainly felt the pressure to get a good climb
out the top last year, but with an MSH that is high enough, if you
don't find a good climb through the top of the cylinder, you would
think you could head out on course and have enough range to get a
reasonable sample of lift on course. It's still a valid strategy to
head out on course, mark a good thermal and come back for a start.

Under the old and new rules there has always been a bit of a
statistical disadvantage to late launchers. I'm not sure I see a magic
solution to the tradeoff between spreading pilots out to decrease
gaggles and bunching them together to make sure everyone gets a more
equal start. It depends on which you think is more important. I think
it's more important to spread them out - within reason.

I guess you could increase the time between last launch and gate
opening, but you start putting pressure on the length of the soaring
day in some cases.

Andy

The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
Parowan.

We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
strong downwind component on the first leg.

In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
lift. If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
again. Trying it is a free option. This flying is done in a very
dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.

Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
deterrent)

As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
something about them!

Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
start anywhere and go back to the old rules.

I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
restrict it more or differently.

John Cochrane
BB

On Jan 9, 4:56*pm, wrote:
The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
Parowan.

We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
strong downwind component on the first leg.

In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
lift. *If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
again. Trying it is a free option. *This flying is done in a very
dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.

Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
deterrent)

As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
something about them!

Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
start anywhere and go back to the old rules.

I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
restrict it more or differently.

John Cochrane
BB

Thanks for taking the time to explain the logic. Sunshine is the best
disinfectant.

No questions in my mind about the motives or competence of the RC.
Some of the rest of us wake up thinking about rules too - and the
racing strategies that issue therefrom.

Any time you have MSH, top of lift and cloudbase close together you're
going to have a bunch of gliders dribbling around in a narrow band
under sketchy conditions. At least now we all know which way to look
for traffic.

9B

9B

On Jan 9, 5:56�pm, wrote:
The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
Parowan.

We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
strong downwind component on the first leg.

In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
lift. �If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
again. Trying it is a free option. �This flying is done in a very
dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.

Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
deterrent)

As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
something about them!

Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
start anywhere and go back to the old rules.

I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
restrict it more or differently.

John Cochrane
BB

Here comes hat duracell bunny beating on that drum....

If the rule is flawed, it is what it is. Any attempt to justify a
rule that is flawed, is false justification.
It has been now pointed out very clearly, that what you can not do
is start anywhere within the defined start cylinder area and be able
to turn anywhere within the defined turn area. This has nothing to do
with starting out the top.

I would sincerely and with all due respect John, hate to see
anyone lost a regional or national event because of rule that now
clearly shows points can be lost when one turns in a defined area. No
one thinks anyone is evil. The rules committe members are all very
highly respected. Yet all of us have a sportsmanship duty, that if we
see something that is wrong or think its not right, to speak on it.
This is sportsmanship. We do not want an unfair advantage over another
entrant due to a rule being written wrong or complex as you have
pointed out.

The CD can easily set the max start height at 10,000 agl as its
only suggested to do otherwise. The start height is not what is
flawed. Starting out the top is not flawed. The rules gives us a
defined turn area inwhich we can turn in, at any point we choose. If
we turn somewhere within the turn area and recieve a point loss, its
because of a flawed rule, then that area should be defined and shown
to all entrants where these areas are without special software
required.
Showing examples of what might happen or hear say, does not
give support to a rule, which gives a point lost without the entrant
even knowing about it. We have an agreement between us, the entrants,
and with the NAA, SSA, IGC and contest officals that the contest will
be fair and equal to all and held according to the rules. The rules
are to be fair and equal to all parties. How can anyone support this
rule knowing full well that it can cause a point loss?

Even saying its only a few points is admisson the rule is
flawed.

What we do have are the finest rules that we have ever had. Some
commiittee members have been working on these since 1992. I do believe
we have a commitment not only to us, but to the NAA, SSA and IGC to
make sure our rules will be sound, well thought out and flaw free. I
wish to maintain integrity in our sport for all entrants and between
all said parties.

What we should do is ever allow a rule, that has been shown to be
flawed, even into our sport. Also, a rule that is flawed, should
never be proposed.

Now, that duracell bunny, has beaten this drum to
shreads..........711.

Ok, we are going to go with the front half circle thing. Let's start
with that as an assumption and that we "give it a try for a year" as
John C is suggesting. What then is the problem with the refinement
suggested by Andy to center the half circle on the line connecting the
start center to the first turnpoint center? This sounds like a MUCH
less complex setup than what is currently be suggested and MUCH easier
to visualize (and perhaps code and score). So why is the proposed/
more complex method better than this? If it's not ALOT better, is
there room in the estimation of the RC for perhaps a refinement to the
current proposal or is that not to be entertained?

Just curious....

-Mark
On Jan
On Jan 9, 7:36*pm, wrote:
On Jan 9, 5:56 pm, wrote:



The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
Parowan.

We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
strong downwind component on the first leg.

In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
lift. If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
again. Trying it is a free option. This flying is done in a very
dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.

Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
deterrent)

As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
something about them!

Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
start anywhere and go back to the old rules.

I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
restrict it more or differently.

John Cochrane
BB

* * *Here comes hat duracell bunny beating on that drum....

* * If the rule is flawed, it is what it is. Any attempt to justify a
rule that is flawed, is false justification.
* * It has been now pointed out very clearly, that what you can not do
is start anywhere within the defined start cylinder area *and be able
to turn anywhere within the defined turn area. *This has nothing to do
with starting out the top.

* * *I would sincerely and with all due respect John, hate to see
anyone lost a regional or national event because of rule that now
clearly shows points can be lost when one turns in a defined area. No
one thinks anyone is evil. The rules committe members are all very
highly respected. Yet all of us have a sportsmanship duty, *that if we
see something that is wrong or think its not right, to speak on it.
This is sportsmanship. We do not want an unfair advantage over another
entrant due to a rule being written wrong or complex as you have
pointed out.

* * *The CD can easily set the max start height at 10,000 agl as its
only suggested to do otherwise. The start height is not what is
flawed. Starting out the top is not flawed. *The rules gives us a
defined turn area inwhich we can turn in, at any point we choose. If
we turn somewhere within the turn area and recieve a point loss, its
because of a flawed rule, then that area should be defined and shown
to all entrants where these areas are without special software
required.
* * * Showing examples of what might happen or hear say, *does not
give support to a rule, which gives a point lost without the entrant
even knowing about it. We have an agreement between us, the entrants,
and with the NAA, SSA, IGC and contest officals that the contest will
be fair and equal to all and held according to the rules. The rules
are to be fair and equal to all parties. How can anyone support this
rule knowing full well that it can cause a point loss?

* * * Even saying its only a few points is admisson the rule is
flawed.

* * * What we do have are the finest rules that we have ever had. Some
commiittee members have been working on these since 1992. I do believe
we have a commitment not only to us, but to the NAA, SSA and IGC to
make sure our rules will be sound, well thought out and flaw free. *I
wish to maintain integrity in our sport for all entrants and between
all said parties.

* * *What we should do is ever allow a rule, that has been shown to be
flawed, even into our sport. *Also, a rule that is flawed, should
never be proposed.

* * *Now, that duracell bunny, has beaten this drum to
shreads..........711.

Random thoughts:

We have many people concerned about "losing distance by having a start
fix and a first turmpoint fix that might give a first leg that is longer
than allowed by the rules" under the proposed "Start almost anywhere"
rule. You know, with the current rule of turnpoint fix to center of start
cylinder minus start radius, you lose distance unless you exit the cylinder
EXACTLY on the line from the center of the start cylinder to the first
turnpoint fix. And since you don't know exactly where you will turn, you
don't know where to exit to keep from "losing distance". Is the new
rule significantly different? The area of "lost distance" is probably
smaller with the proposed rule than it is with the current rule.

Bumping gaggles in the start cylinder. How many thermals do you think you
will bump in 5 miles? The lower the tops of the thermals, the more gaggles
you might bump. But out west, there may only be one thermal inside the
start cylinder! At Uvalde last summer, I don't think you could have
bumped more than one gaggle from the center to the edge of the start
cylinder.

Looking forward to the return of thermals to the Midwest!

Steve Leonard
ZS

On Jan 9, 11:00*pm, Steve Leonard wrote:
Random thoughts:

We have many people concerned about "losing distance by having a start
fix and a first turmpoint fix that might give a first leg that is longer
than allowed by the rules" under the proposed "Start almost anywhere"
rule. *You know, with the current rule of turnpoint fix to center of start
cylinder minus start radius, you lose distance unless you exit the cylinder
EXACTLY on the line from the center of the start cylinder to the first
turnpoint fix. *And since you don't know exactly where you will turn, you
don't know where to exit to keep from "losing distance". *Is the new
rule significantly different? *The area of "lost distance" is probably
smaller with the proposed rule than it is with the current rule. * *

Bumping gaggles in the start cylinder. *How many thermals do you think you
will bump in 5 miles? *The lower the tops of the thermals, the more gaggles
you might bump. *But out west, there may only be one thermal inside the
start cylinder! *At Uvalde last summer, I don't think you could have
bumped more than one gaggle from the center to the edge of the start
cylinder.

Looking forward to the return of thermals to the Midwest!

Steve Leonard
ZS

Technically, I think you are referring the 2007 Regional Rules. In
2008 the first leg was scored from the point you actually leave the
start cylinder. However, for 2007 you are correct. The issue is
conceptually similar to the 2009 proposal, but under the 2007 rules
the potential magnitude of un-scored distance attributable to
variations in first turn fixes was an order of magnitude smaller than
would be the worst case under the proposed rule for 2009.

One thought for a rule modification would be to extend the 115 mph
speed limit inside the start cylinder to extend to the airspace above
the start cylinder. Do loggers track IAS?

9B

On Jan 10, 1:51*am, wrote:

Technically, I think you are referring the 2007 Regional Rules. In
2008 the first leg was scored from the point you actually leave the
start cylinder. However, for 2007 you are correct.

I'm puzzled by that. I didn't compete in a Regional in 2008 so I
didn't study the rules. However it was my recollection that, for
regionals, contestants were scored full distance for a start anywhere
in the start cylinder. When I pulled the 2008 regional FAI class
rules from the SSA site to make sure I was using correct assumptions/
terminology for this discussion I found the following:

10.8.6 The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the
distance from the Start Point to the control fix at the first
turnpoint, minus the Start Radius.

2007 FAI regional rules from SSA web site say

10.8.6 The distance of the first task leg shall be taken as the
distance from the Start Point to the control fix at the first
turnpoint, minus the Start Radius.

The 2007 and 2008 FAI regional rules appear to be the same, so was
"start anywhere" proposed for 2008 regionals but not actually
implemented?

Andy

On Jan 9, 7:42*pm, MarkHawke7 wrote:
*What then is the problem with the refinement
suggested by Andy to center the half circle on the line connecting the
start center to the first turnpoint center? *

One disadvantage of my proposal is that a start made just behind the
fixed semicircle diameter would be invalid and no points at all would
be scored for the day. I doubt any current flight computer software
would flag that start as invalid. I suppose its a trade off.

Andy