Hard Deck

At 02:15 31 January 2018, Michael Opitz wrote:

George Moffat and the sailing crowd have always proposed to drop
both the individual pilot's best and worst days because "that's what
they do in sailing". You might be able to do that in a Grand Prix
format where each day counts the same. I don't see how we can do
that as long as we have devalued days. A pilot can be a day winner
on a very difficult 600 point day, and be forced to drop his
day win because all of the other contest days weren't devalued,
even though he had another day where he only got 850 points
compared to that other day's winner?

Please tell me how you propose to make that fair?? I can't see it
being done without a total overhaul of the scoring system.

RO

I have never understood why a difficult day gets devalued. Seems to me that
difficult days are a better test of skill.

Devaluation also has the effect that CDs try to set 3 hour tasks. Why if
the window is short?

Not devaluing days would remove some complexity and IMO improve
competitions!

Jim

At 18:58 31 January 2018, Jim White wrote:
At 02:15 31 January 2018, Michael Opitz wrote:

George Moffat and the sailing crowd have always proposed to
drop
both the individual pilot's best and worst days because "that's
what
they do in sailing". You might be able to do that in a Grand Prix
format where each day counts the same. I don't see how we can
do
that as long as we have devalued days. A pilot can be a day
winner
on a very difficult 600 point day, and be forced to drop his
day win because all of the other contest days weren't devalued,
even though he had another day where he only got 850 points
compared to that other day's winner?

Please tell me how you propose to make that fair?? I can't see it
being done without a total overhaul of the scoring system.

RO

I have never understood why a difficult day gets devalued. Seems
to me tha
difficult days are a better test of skill.

Devaluation also has the effect that CDs try to set 3 hour tasks.
Why i
the window is short?

Not devaluing days would remove some complexity and IMO
improv
competitions!

Jim

I don't know what your devaluation rules are in the UK, but in the
USA, the rules say that the daily task should be set so that the
winner should take at least 3 hours to complete it (as a fair test of
nationals level soaring skills). There are times when the weather
window will not allow the total time needed to launch and fly a
three hour task, but a two hour (or 1.5 hour) task would be "in the
cards" in order to get a valid contest day in the books, and to
possibly preclude a "rained out contest" (due to not having the
required amount of contest days). Instead of counting the
shortened days equally to the full length days, they are devalued
proportionately. Otherwise a 5 minute error could cost a pilot
twice as many points on a 1.5 hour task compared to a 3 hour
task. As the task time decreases, the points per minute goes
up quite quickly unless devaluation kicks in.

Other devaluation rules pertaining to a low percentage of task
finishers due to an over-call or weather related luck factors have
been added as well. If there is a speed task that nobody is able to
finish (in the USA rules), the winner on a day like this would not
be eligible for any speed points - only distance points - and thus
would only be eligible for a maximum of ~600 points (if landing
just short of the actual finish line - arc, point, goal, etc). At one
time there were scoring systems (FAI rules?) for when there were
no finishers, the day would revert to full value based on distance
achieved, as it was seen as a fair distance task at that point. I
don't know if the FAI still has that in place or not.

I am not on the USA rules committee, so I'm sure there are
others that are much more familiar with the reasons why certain
rules were written the way they were. Those people with a
better understanding can add to and correct any errors that I
have made here.

RO

At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:

On a day when most people can stay high, true. On a day when
only a few make it home, not true. In a contest where that day
determines the winner, a single low save can determine the winner.

The 1958 WGC Open Class was won on a day like that, except that
E.G. Haase (as relayed personally to me) made a string of very
low saves (albeit all over very landable terrain) and was thus able
to tiptoe his way to victory that day. He was then able to defend his
lead until the contest ended. It was a brilliant flight, not luck. Some
pilots are just better at that kind of flying than others. For example,
in Belgium, they have a maximum altitude of 3,000' due to
controlled airspace over the entire country. Those guys fly low a
lot.

The 1985 WGC STD Class was also won that way on a very difficult
day where a lot of us landed out. LB found a small thermal at
around 100 meters, (possibly marked by a team mate?) which
eventually got him high enough to get back home. This gave
him enough of a lead to win the contest. Leo later even wrote an
article about "the thermal that won him the WGC".

I am sure that there are more examples of this.... I am just
personally familiar with these two right off the top of my head.

Contests are most often decided on the difficult days. In general,
the performance on those days separates the best from the rest.
If one just wants to race on the nice days, it seems like an OLC
camp would be the place to go. If you want to pick a national
champion who will have any kind of a shot at being competitive
at a WGC, then one can't eliminate the difficult days.

RO

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:00:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:

The 1958 WGC Open Class was won on a day like that, except that
E.G. Haase (as relayed personally to me) made a string of very
low saves (albeit all over very landable terrain) and was thus able
to tiptoe his way to victory that day. He was then able to defend his
lead until the contest ended. It was a brilliant flight, not luck. Some
pilots are just better at that kind of flying than others. For example,
in Belgium, they have a maximum altitude of 3,000' due to
controlled airspace over the entire country. Those guys fly low a
lot.

Did he mention his thermal detector?! This is pretty good stuff, especially the last two paragraphs. The good ole days
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%200010.PDF

At 14:58 01 February 2018, Clay wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:00:07 PM UTC-5, Michael
Opitz wrote:
At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:

The 1958 WGC Open Class was won on a day like that, except
that
E.G. Haase (as relayed personally to me) made a string of very
low saves (albeit all over very landable terrain) and was thus
able
to tiptoe his way to victory that day. He was then able to defend
his
lead until the contest ended. It was a brilliant flight, not luck.
Some
pilots are just better at that kind of flying than others. For
example,
in Belgium, they have a maximum altitude of 3,000' due to
controlled airspace over the entire country. Those guys fly low a
lot.

Did he mention his thermal detector?! This is pretty good stuff,
especially the last two paragraphs. The good ole days
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...58/1958-1-%20-
%200010.PDF

Thanks for the link. No, E.G. never mentioned the thermal detector
to me. He talked very extensively about the HKS-3, and what they
did to tune it though. They used wing warping as opposed to
ailerons in order to minimize interference drag. The canopy
didn't have a vent or window so as not to disturb the air in front
of the wing root. He had a vent air exhaust in the tail-cone, but
could only get ventilation air through a scoop in the wheel well
when the gear was down. So, he generally thermalled with the
gear down for cockpit ventilation, and cruised with the gear
retracted. He said that everyone thought he was crazy to
always thermal with the gear down, but that was his only access
to fresh air as the rest of the glider was sealed up so tightly. He
told me to always have a vent air extraction exit that was 50%
larger than the inlet vent so as to prevent positive pressure
buildup inside the glider.

That was back in 1972 when I was 21. I stayed at his house as
a guest for ~a week, and flew with him and his club in Vogtareuth
Germany. I even became the first person other that E.G.
or his partner allowed to fly his ASK-14 motorglider. I think I
logged about ~20 hours flying in the German Alps with it. Those
were very good times for me...

RO

‘Nuther consideration. Rules simplification has been a concern of many contest pilots, and thus the rules committee, for years. I can’t imagine how many cosine thetas John Good would have to pull out of his MIT hat to make this hard deck business lawyer proof and executable by Guy Byars our scoring “guy.�

Karl Striedieck

It's not hard. Here is what is needed. The current rule

5.6.2.3 The CD may declare additional airspace to be closed.

All that is needed is one more sentence.

5.6.2.3 The CD may declare additional airspace to be closed, and may specify penalties for such airspace. The provisions of this rule can be used to set minimum MSL altitudes in some or all of the task area, and to score pilots as landing out if they descent below such altitudes.

Period. That is all that is needed.

As for the scoring program, it works just like restricted airspace now. Put in an SUA file, the scoring program says "warning, entry to restricted airspace" and the scorer can ether put in a penalty, or in the "edit flight log" box enter the current position as the scored landing position.

One may dislike the rule, but it is not complex to write or to administer.

John Cochrane

The CD can do this...........the CD can do that..........how many of you guys have paid you'd dues and spent a week in the CD barel? I have CD'd 3 nats and more regionals than I can remember and believe me your good old CD's plate is overflowing. He's already reviewing motorglider traces to see if they motored directly to the designated release area and didn't just motor around looking for the best thermal in town. He's reviewing all traces on a thunderstorm day to see if anyone logged a little unauthorized IFR time .............yes, this happened! I reported it, but nothing was done and by the end of the week at least 4 guys did it..........I know because they told me they iced up!
Sorry about my little rant, I feel much better now,
JJ

On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 18:26:23 UTC-7, wrote:
The CD can do this...........the CD can do that..........how many of you guys have paid you'd dues and spent a week in the CD barel? I have CD'd 3 nats and more regionals than I can remember and believe me your good old CD's plate is overflowing. He's already reviewing motorglider traces to see if they motored directly to the designated release area and didn't just motor around looking for the best thermal in town. He's reviewing all traces on a thunderstorm day to see if anyone logged a little unauthorized IFR time .............yes, this happened! I reported it, but nothing was done and by the end of the week at least 4 guys did it..........I know because they told me they iced up!
Sorry about my little rant, I feel much better now,
JJ

Thanks JJ, I posted earlier a similar comment, The CD can do this, the scorer can check this and manually do this, the organizers can create a SUA file etc.

If it cannot be automated and simply implemented then it will be a burden to the contest folks.

KISS please

He's reviewing all traces on a thunderstorm day to see if anyone logged a little unauthorized IFR time ............yes, this happened! I reported it, but nothing was done and by the end of the week at least 4 guys did it...........I know because they told me they iced up!
Sorry about my little rant, I feel much better now,
JJ

Cloud flying isn't a big deal for those, like me, who learned to fly in Britain and South Africa where it is permitted. I still do it occasionally when safe to do so.

Here in the USA, my observation in contests is that no-one observes required FAR minima around clouds - in a strong thermal every pilot will keep climbing until their upper wing disappears into the wispies. I have seen many pilots enter cloud, including climbing into them, flying through them, over them and round them! Although against the rules (and possibly dangerous) it is almost never punished.

Perhaps the rules committee could come up with a formula to deal with this little problem (a challenge for our dismal scientist!).

Mike