Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

And so the advantage will go to a well-practiced crew in a two-seater. The driver in front and the electronics whizz in the back seat driving all of the "stuff" and acting as captain. Should be invincible in sports and open.






On Saturday, January 10, 2015 at 6:35:19 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
The minutes of the Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting have been posted on the SSA website under "Racing Rules and Process" and can be accessed directly via the link below.

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2014...ng_Minutes.pdf

If you can't get the link to work automatically, copy its text and paste it into a program like Notepad, then copy the text from Notepad and paste it into your browser.

For the Committee,
John Godfrey (QT), Chair

Pure AT's are almost as rare as ridge soaring unicorns in the United States today: http://regmedia.co.uk/2011/09/13/uni...8&y=429&crop=1

As only 3% of SSA sanctioned contest tasks (all classes sports, FAI, 15, 18, Standard & Open in both regionals and nationals) were AT's in 2013. THREE PERCENT! The 2014 "numbers" are coming soon. Anyone care to wager what the 2014 AT % will be?

Link to the 2013 SSA Task Spreadsheet he https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets...it?usp=sharing

It is waste of printer ink to include a rule forbidding ASTs in sports class. Why bother? The likelihood of getting as AST at a sports class regional or nationals (only the US has a "sports class") is almost zero. AST's have been criminalized and *******ized by the US/SSA into the MAT. Most MAT's in 2013 were the DREADED "one turn" MAT aka OLC task. I won't even speak about the 1 turn MAT other than to say that nothing justifies OLC contests better.

The MAT is a poor task in my opinion. It only exists in the USA (SSA) I believe. If that is true, I think it is for very good reason. As the prominent feature of a MAT (much like the TAT) is a minimum time, it is not a racing task by definition. The complexity that is inherently introduced at the end of the long MAT (the only reasonable MAT) often screws up the leaders great performance (to that point) as a mistake in choosing the extra turn point(s) often results in another pilot "getting lucky." Timing/task speed is also critical. If the first pilot to the final "called" MAT point is 5-10 minutes early, they really have no time to hit another point. They may be forced to simply give up that time. The alternative is to "take a chance" in adding another free turn point while the trailers do not have to take this risk to finish over the minimum time. What a mess! This is not a satisfying way to win a task (luck) and is simply unfair to the top pilots. MATs should almost never be called in pure classes or at Nationals. If you can call a long MAT, why bother? Call an AST!!!! MATs should mainly be called in sports class which has now formally OUTLAWED (nice catch YO) the AST! That is pretty funny really. I am not in the least surprised.

Pure AT's should be called on any contest flying day when the weather is good or great. If its a great forecast, call an AT, simple! Pure assigned tasks are easy, clean tests of flying skill. They have the fewest variables of all other tasks BY FAR. They should be further enhanced with 30-60 minute start windows (I would prefer 20)! The other SSA tasks are "compromise tasks" that should only be called when the CD absolutely must in order to deal with less than ideal circumstances (weather, handicap range, broad pilot skill). We should have at least 25% AT's in the USA, not 3%. MAT's are NOT ATs! They stink! We should outlaw them in pure classes just as the AST was OUTLAWED in sports!

I understand why sports class CD's (with its large handicap range and varied pilot skill level) would have a difficult time getting a real task called.. And this is probably why the sports class is fading away. Its not a very good means of competing. It is certainly my (and probably most others) last choice for a competition class. SSA sports class (only in the USA) is a compromise class to use when not enough gliders are available to have club, 15, 18, Open, Standard or FAI classes.

I would suggest that sports class should be broken into smaller groups (as small as 5) of similar handicap ranges in order to further avoid having to call so many of these compromise tasks. More small classes would also mean more chances to compete fairly and more trophies! That is a great thing IMO. A class with many gliders from 126 to ASG29 and tasks to accommodate that range is, very, very undesirable.

Now, I'm off to put together 2014 tasking numbers!



On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:41:05 AM UTC-5, Dave Nadler wrote:
On Thursday, January 22, 2015 at 2:48:09 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
... My solution is more assigned tasks (AT) ...
... We should be flying 40% AT's instead of the current 5-7% (2013).

Looks like latest rules have discarded AT:

10.3.2.1 Assigned Task (AT) - Speed over a course of one or more designated turnpoints, with a finish at the contest site. This task is available only for US Club Class...

Sean,
You are absolutely correct that there are very few AST's called in US contests each year. However, perhaps you could improve the validity of your research by factoring in for each day the handicap range of the class flown, daily weather conditions, and perhaps landout opportunities over the projected course (add any other factors you think might be pertinent). Just shouting 3% AST's in 2013, while it may be an accurate gross percentage, does not include the variables that would come into play for a CD to remove that option for a give day.
After more than 25 years as a professional buyer listening to sales personnel sling statistics at me to prove a point, it never failed to amaze me on how often they neglected to add or subtract data that gave a true picture of how a product may perform.
I'm very interested in what you come up with.

Once the door is open, there will be no closing it.
UH

Or, we can wait to see if there is actually a problem before writing a lot of rules to ban hypothetical problems.

I never understood the "once the door is open there will be no closing it" argument. If pilots don't like an innovation -- after they've seen it, if it turns out to actually cause a problem -- then it's easy enough to ban after the fact.

It sounds like UH is worried that a majority of pilots, especially young hot pilots, wee see tech in the cockpit and say "yeah, that's great." Well, should a minority of us older guys really stand in the way if a majority feels that way?

There is plenty of precedent for closing doors. People put artificial horizons in gliders, flew clouds, won contests with it. Then US pilots decided this wasn't such a good idea, and banned them. (Back then, we didn't have traces, so banning equipment was the only way.) Contests used to allow distance tasks. Pilots decided they didn't like the, door closed. Contests used to allow pilots to have a crew following the pilot around the sky, ready to retrieve, throw the glider back in the box, reassemble, and try again. Pilots decided they didn't like this, door closed. Again and again, when something has turned out to be a real problem, in the real world, and a majority of pilots decide they don't like the way racing is going, rules change and things go back in the box.

I just don't get how, if something turns out to be a problem that a majority of pilots dislike, it can't be ruled out later. And if your argument is that you're afraid a majority of pilots will like change, I see even less reason that the RC should stand in the way.

John Cochrane

Sean:

There is a reason CDs and task advisers call so few ATs. In the winter on RAS ATs sound great. At 10 AM running a real contest they don't.

ATs necessarily use a small fraction of the soaring day. If a 70% speed pilot can finish, that means the top pilot left 30% of the soaring day on the table. A few days of flying 3 hour tasks on 5-6 hour days (4 hours for slow pilot to finish task, 1 hour to lanuch, 15 minutes to open gate, 15 minutes to get everyone going) and people start grumbling that OLC lets them do a lot more flying.

Or, the CD sets long tasks and the beginners land out day after day. Then they go home and don't go back.

That's on great days with predictable weather. Your CD and task advisers notice quickly that not every day is perfect. Thunderstorms, and the whole fleet lands out at turnpoint 1, while the sky is booming everywhere else. This just isn't fun.

But the rules allow AT! This is not a rules question. Volunteer to be task adviser. Run an all AT contest at Ionia. See if people want it so bad to show up. Lobby task advisers at your contests to run more ATs -- and to persuade all the other pilots that it's a great idea. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stopping anyone from running an all -AT contest. If they want to do it.

John Cochrane

I see two principled reasons to restrict technology in the cockpit. One is if it represents a direct threat to safety that outweighs any beneficial use. The second is if it is both a source of significant competitive advantage AND prohibitively expensive for a significant number of pilots. In both cases being certain about the magnitude of these effects is critical as versions of both arguments have been used against GPS, flight computers, Flarm, Spot/InReach, motorgliders and I'm guessing even electronic variometers and parachutes way back before my time.

The one argument I occasionally hear that I don't give much weighting to is the concern that new technology might give an advantage to pilots willing to learn how to use it over pilots who don't like to learn new things. This argument to me is an argument to kill innovation in a sport that really needs innovation to help it remain vibrant.

Modern cellphones with data communications are ubiquitous and cheap. The technology components have helped make flight computers much more affordable. There are beneficial uses for these innovations in our sport that we are only beginning to understand. I think attempts to stamp them out are both impractical and ultimately a drag on the appeal of the sport.

As John said - if people in reality experience widespread problems with any specific technology we'll hear about it right quickly. We already know that people have weather radar apps on their phones plus a lot of other things.. There's plenty of good that can come of it, but we can also watch for warning signs. We already do - a lot.

9B

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 7:59:47 AM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
...versions of both arguments have been used against GPS, flight computers,
Flarm, Spot/InReach, motorgliders and I'm guessing even electronic
variometers and parachutes way back before my time.

See: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.aviation.soaring/technification$20AND$20striedieck/rec.aviation.soaring/Mdg3ZiuBapk/SdoUYMeeCjQJ

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Nice stroll down memory lane Dave!

On Saturday, January 24, 2015 at 1:52:03 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Nice stroll down memory lane Dave!

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/rec....k/_H-c9Blf55sJ

John,

I think most would agree that US rules and our general US tasking "policy" is deeply intertwined. Some very strongly held opinions on tasking are held in certain "area's of influence." I believe that many US and Canadian "contest" pilots are very interested in this discussion about the near US extinction of Assigned Tasks.

The facts are that the USA/SSA ran only 4 (thats right, FOUR aka 2%) ASTs in 2014. This is down almost 50% from 7 in 2013. We ran only 2 ASTs in 2014 US National Contests (down 60% from 2013). Ironically, the only 2014 US Nationals AST (two classes, same day) was held for the "US?" Club Class! So its really one 1 AST in US Nationals in 2014.

I can't imagine too many pilots getting excited to go fly contests that consist mainly of wide turn radius TAT and zero and one turn point MAT.

Well, at least we have the Sailplane Grand Prix to dream about...

Sean


On Friday, January 23, 2015 at 10:33:15 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Sean:

There is a reason CDs and task advisers call so few ATs. In the winter on RAS ATs sound great. At 10 AM running a real contest they don't.

ATs necessarily use a small fraction of the soaring day. If a 70% speed pilot can finish, that means the top pilot left 30% of the soaring day on the table. A few days of flying 3 hour tasks on 5-6 hour days (4 hours for slow pilot to finish task, 1 hour to lanuch, 15 minutes to open gate, 15 minutes to get everyone going) and people start grumbling that OLC lets them do a lot more flying.

Or, the CD sets long tasks and the beginners land out day after day. Then they go home and don't go back.

That's on great days with predictable weather. Your CD and task advisers notice quickly that not every day is perfect. Thunderstorms, and the whole fleet lands out at turnpoint 1, while the sky is booming everywhere else. This just isn't fun.

But the rules allow AT! This is not a rules question. Volunteer to be task adviser. Run an all AT contest at Ionia. See if people want it so bad to show up. Lobby task advisers at your contests to run more ATs -- and to persuade all the other pilots that it's a great idea. There is absolutely nothing in the rules stopping anyone from running an all -AT contest. If they want to do it.

John Cochrane