Start Anywhere

I was reviewing some contest flights from 2008 and it occurred to me
that there hadn't been a thorough review of people's experience with
the new "start anywhere" rule - which measures distance on the first
leg from a start from anywhere along the boundries of the start
cylinder.

I general I prefer it to the old rule, but it seems to put more
pressure on getting the perfect start. I found myself popping the
brakes and going down for a lot more starts than in prior years. At
Parowan a few of us lobbied for and got a higher MSH to keep people
out of the weeds when going back down for another start in the high
ground east of the field (where most of the good thermals were).

Any other reactions out there?

9B

On Dec 22, 6:03*am, wrote:
I was reviewing some contest flights from 2008 and it occurred to me
that there hadn't been a thorough review of people's experience with
the new "start anywhere" rule - which measures distance on the first
leg from a start from anywhere along the boundries of the start
cylinder.

I general I prefer it to the old rule, but it seems to put more
pressure on getting the perfect start. I found myself popping the
brakes and going down for a lot more starts than in prior years. At
Parowan a few of us lobbied for and got a higher MSH to keep people
out of the weeds when going back down for another start in the high
ground east of the field (where most of the good thermals were).

Any other reactions out there?

9B

I brought this up a couple times at the regionals I flew this year. I
was assured that we were flying "start anywhere" with actual distance
from the start fix to the first turn being scored, but I never saw the
actual rule that made it so. This is what the 08 regional FAI rules,
published on the SSA web site state: "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."
That, of course, is the old rule.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

I took a start by climbing out the top, near the back of the circle,
then winscore gave me another start with a penalty ( I wasn't below
start gate altitude for 2 minutes), as I nicked the front edge of the
circle on my way to the first turn. This rule requires a lot more
talking to the scorer, not sure its worth the hassle.
JJ

Andy-San,

Like you I prefer the new rule over the old, but I disagree that it
puts more pressure on getting the perfect start. Without the rule,
there is a lot more lurking and loitering around the side of the start
cylinder in the direction of the first turn. With the rule, one can
explore the whole start cylinder for a good thermal and take it out
the top. I would feel more pressure under the old rule.

There is a small learning curve for scorers (as you know I was the
scorer at Parowan last year). The rule essentially requires that the
scorer examine any and all warnings or suggested penalties at a start.
Pilots should *always* verify their given score against what the
scorer accepts from Winscore, and know the rules wrt starting out the
top and nicking the cylinder again on course to the first turn (ref.
JJ's comment). And it never, EVER hurts to take the scorer a cold
something in a green bottle with your question, especially in Utah.

I'm looking forward to FLYING with the new rule at Parowan this year.
It's not even 2009 yet and the contest already has 35 pilots
registered!

~ted/2NO

Andy: Not enough review? RC has been asking pilots for a year for
feedback, we had a poll question, we've assembled all we could learn
about how it worked this year, and I can't tell you how many hours of
discussion went into talking about it.

More feedback is always welcome, but information is most useful when
it comes around poll time and before the annual rules committee
meeting in November. We're now at the stage of finalizing things for
the SSA board. As per minutes, "start anywhere" is scheduled to go to
nationals next year unless there is some nuclear disaster we don't
know about.

I don't understand how giving you credit for the actual distance from
start point to first turn meakes you want to pop the brakes and go
down to start more often. Explain please.

It sounds like you're more upset with start altitudes than "start
anywhere." Start altitudes should be low enough that the last guy to
launch has a reasonable chance to get to MSH before the gate opens.
We're also going to encourage CDs to set start heights at least 500'
below cloudbase to stop this idiotic prestart gaggling in the clouds,
and 500' below dry thermal tops so you don't have to spend 20 minutes
clawing that last few feet before start. With the option to start out
the top in a strong thermal (which was always there) I'm still not
sure what you're unhappy about.

Evan: 10.8.6 was a typo. The intent, and what was programmed into
winscore, is to give you the distance from start point to the control
fix at the first turnpoint. That's what will be implemeted this year.

JJ: There's nothing new about this. Even under the old system,
winscore would have picked out the last start with a penalty, and it
would have been up to you to find the better earlier start. We're
working with Guy Byars to automate this process, which should help
scorers. If your last start has a penalty, then winscore will (we
hope) automatically look for a better previous start. Of course,
nothing beats understanding the rules and checking that you're being
credited for the "right" start, but we're all working on getting it
automated so you don't have to.

More questions please! It's freezing darn cold outside and a great
time for everyone to understand how "start anywhere" will work this
year.

John Cochrane
BB

I think the "start anywhere" idea was great and the CD suggestion for
the 500' buffer even better. However I can't seem to connect the dots
on JJ issue with the penalty and nicking the start cyl. along with BB
explaination. BB, would you you expand on what happened to JJ and your
response.
R

I think the "start anywhere" idea was great and the CD suggestion for
the 500' buffer even better. However I can't seem to connect the dots
on JJ issue with the penalty and nicking the start cyl. along with BB
explaination. BB, would you you expand on what happened to JJ and your
response.

Sure. The "start anywhere" rule says you must take your last start, if
that start doesn't incur a penalty. If your last start incurs a
penalty, then you're free to use earlier starts. A start is any time
you exit the cylinder, so when JJ started out the top/back but then
glided back down and nicked the cylinder he did "start" again.
However, since he wasn't under the start height for 2 minutes, this
last "start" would have the 2 minute penalty associated with it.
Therefore, JJ was free to use the earlier start out the top, which is
what he wanted to do all along. (We're going to try to automate this
process this year so that you don't have to be a rules expert or
butter up the scorer.)

This is the rule working exactly as it should. If someone nips out
the top/back and then tries to bump the start gaggles, he's not going
to get away with it -- he will be forced to take the last start. But
if you start out the top and try your best to stay above the start
cylinder but inadvertently nip into it, you're ok.

By the way, this is exactly what would have happened on the old rule.
Winscore would have found the last start, noticed the 2 minute
penalty, and suggested a start with penalty. Then it would have been
up to JJ and the scorer to search back and see if he had a previous
start that avoided the big penalty. The only difference is that now
JJ gets credit for the extra 10 miles or so of distance, whereas
before he would have had to give that up.

I hope this clears it up. Short version: If you stay the heck out of
the start cylinder after starting, you can ignore all the fancy
language in the rules.

I wrote a little "contest corner" explaining the new start, still
available he
http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.c...t_anywhere.htm

John Cochrane
BB

Just a quick note:

As a new contest pilot (first Regionals will be #12 in Warner Springs
in April), I really like the 'start anywhere' idea. Some more
experienced folk might not like it as much because it seems less-
competitive or a bit more complex - but its been beaten into me how
dangerous gaggle-flying can be in a contest, ESPECIALLY near the
start. As a newbie it takes a lot of pressure off if I can just float
away from the main gaggle and find another acceptable thermal - who
knows, it may be an even better one than the group is using?
Regardless of whether it is, in fact, better - I get to make the
choice myself and I get all the "credit" (or "blame" and shame) for
making that call in terms of distance and scoring. Its nice to know
that i'm going to start my flight with a lot of options open to me...

I'll be curious to see how it plays out in my actual contest starts
this year!

Take care,

--Noel

John, a couple of questions:

First, what is the difference between starting out the top and
"nicking" the front of the start cylinder (JJ's example) and starting
out the top and "bouncing" a convenient start gaggle near the front of
the start cylinder, conveniently located on your courseline - which
(according to your Contest Corner article, the new start is supposed
to prevent)? Seems the two are for all practical purposes identical
to me - If JJ had to bounce a start gaggle where he nicked the
cylinder, would he have had to take the penalized start?

Second, and more basic: Why do we even allow starts out the top? I
thought the CD was supposed to set the top high enough that it would
be unlikely that anyone could start out the top (Quote in Winning
2?). Allowing the lucky pilot who stumbles into the one thermal that
tops out 2000' above the rest to use all of it, while the rest are
trying to stay under the top to avoid the 2 minute penalty seems a bit
counterproductive. I've raced out West, where the selected top can be
a significant factor, and in the East, where it usually isn't, so I'm
really curious. We setup the start opening time to allow everybody an
equal opportunity to achieve a good start, but leave a bit of a
loophole, IMHO.

As an aside, why isn't the top of the start cylinder given as an MSL
altitude, instead of an AGL altitude? Seems absurd, since you end up
having to add the start height to the elevation of the start point,
then use an MSL altitude anyway, which could have no relation to AGL
if the start cylinder is over mountainous terrain and the start point
in a valley!

That being said, I like the new start - just wish the computers I use
(SN10 and mSeeYou) handled it better....

Kirk
66

I agree with Kirk...who determines a nick vs. a machette wack.
R