US SSA Contest Pilot Opinion Poll

The annual SSA/SRA Pilot Opinion Poll is open at
http://adamsfive.com/survey/surveys.php. The poll closes on October 18. You
are eligible to participate if you're on the US Pilot Ranking List
(basically if you've flown an SSA-sanctioned contest in the past 3 years).
Please take a few minutes to respond to the poll - they're your Contest
Rules.

The position on the SSA Rules Committee currently filled by Hank Nixon was
up for election this year. The only nomination received was for Hank's
re-election. Since Hank ran unopposed, no vote is required.

Thanks.

Ken Sorenson
SSA Contest Committee Chair

Thanks, Ken! Lots

Wow, the TAT/MAT proposal is a tough one! "Favoring" long-distance
landouts over short-distance finishers would be an interesting change
of philosophy. Right now all tasks are set up so that finishing the
task that is assigned to you is the top priority, and your decision-
making flows from there. This proposal seems to introduce the idea
that completing the task is NOT top priority; scoring at least a
certain distance is top priority, with a good finish being a secondary
objective. Hrmm...

If this applied only to MATs I might be cool with it; but I'm inclined
to say "no" simply because TATs comprise the bulk of the contest tasks
I've flown and it seems odd to put a premium on distance instead of
finishing the course. I don't like giving short-distance finishers
too much credit for "wimping out"; but sometimes getting home and
making a good finish is the smart/commendable move! Encouraging
people to fly into iffy weather or risk landing out more often in
order to lengthen their TATs

I've only been racing for two seasons. The poll description is brief
and doesn't really describe all of the ramifications of the scoring
change. The examples don't show much of the scoring change in terms
of long-landouts beating short-finishers (only 1); it mostly shows how
the change increases the points-spread between finishers when people
finish under-time or with a short flight. If no one had finished
under-time in example two, would their scores have still been spread-
out by a similar amount, under these new rules? Is this someone's
idea of bringing back the "distance tasks" of the old days?

Does anyone with more racing experience than I want to provide clarity
or more info?

Thanks,

--Noel

On Sep 21, 10:56*am, "noel.wade" wrote:
Thanks, Ken! *Lots

Wow, the TAT/MAT proposal is a tough one! *

Well, you can probably guess who came up with that one! I did my best
to write a poll question that explained the issue sufficiently, but
yet was somewhere near short enough to put on the poll. I'm happy to
answer questions directly or via r.a.s. I know it's a complex issue,
but if we do what is, I think, the right answer, we need to all
understand that means a 60 mile, one hour "finish" might score less
than a 250 mile landout.

It does apply mostly to MAT, but can apply to turn area tasks. Some
CDs love 30 mile circles, so it is possible to nick the circles, fly
60 miles and "finish" in one hour, while the "real" task flies 250
miles in 3.5 hours. Current rules guarantee you 600 points (i.e. give
you the same as the winner's distance points) for this little gambit;
the proposal will not. That's especially a problem in sports class;
the circles have to be set large enough so a short course is available
for the 1-26; but then the nimbus 4 gets the "nick the circle and
finish" option.

John Cochrane

On Sep 21, 1:21*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
On Sep 21, 10:56*am, "noel.wade" wrote:

Thanks, Ken! *Lots

Wow, the TAT/MAT proposal is a tough one! *

Well, you can probably guess who came up with that one! I did my best
to write a poll question that explained the issue sufficiently, but
yet was somewhere near short enough to put on the poll. I'm happy to
answer questions directly or via r.a.s. *I know it's a complex issue,
but if we do what is, I think, the right answer, we need to all
understand that means a 60 mile, one hour "finish" might score less
than a 250 mile landout.

It does apply mostly to MAT, *but can apply to turn area tasks. Some
CDs love 30 mile circles, so it is possible to nick the circles, fly
60 miles and "finish" in one hour, while the "real" task flies 250
miles in 3.5 hours. Current rules guarantee you 600 points (i.e. give
you the same as the winner's distance points) for this little gambit;
the proposal will not. *That's especially a problem in sports class;
the circles have to be set large enough so a short course is available
for the 1-26; but then the nimbus 4 gets the "nick the circle and
finish" option.

John Cochrane

Hmm, is this an unintended side-effect of an earlier rule change to
give long landouts more points (from 400 to 600 IIRC)? Before that
change, scores for finishers were spread over 600 pts. The larger
spread meant that a 'short finisher' was more heavily punished,
relative to the day winner.

If the two rule changes are viewed together, they represent a very
significant change away from the philosophy that it is more important
to finish than it is to rack up distance.

I'm not sure that's all bad, but it is a significant change

TA

Hmm, is this an unintended side-effect of an earlier rule change to
give long landouts more points (from 400 to 600 IIRC)? *Before that
change, scores for finishers were spread over 600 pts. *The larger
spread meant that a 'short finisher' was more heavily punished,
relative to the day winner.

If the two rule changes are viewed together, they represent a very
significant change away from the philosophy that it is more important
to finish than it is to rack up distance.

I'm not sure that's all bad, but it is a significant change

TA

A little bit, but really it is more an unintended effect of applying
assigned task rules to MAT and TAT. In an assigned task, if you
"finish" you made it all the way around the course, so it makes sense
to give everyone who does that the same distance points. In the TAT
and MAT, there is the option to "finish" by flying 61 miles, when
everybody else goes 250. On an assigned task, this would be counted as
"landing at an airport near the first turn" and get very few points.
On TAT and MAT, you get to call that a "finish" and get the same
distance points as everyone else who went 250 miles. Whether that's
400 or 600 points is a bit of a difference, but minor. We would still
be giving everyone who went from 60 to 249 miles the same distance
points.

So it's really about what do we think of as "finishing the task" when
everybody goes different distances.

John Cochrane

On Sep 22, 11:21*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
Hmm, is this an unintended side-effect of an earlier rule change to
give long landouts more points (from 400 to 600 IIRC)? *Before that
change, scores for finishers were spread over 600 pts. *The larger
spread meant that a 'short finisher' was more heavily punished,
relative to the day winner.

If the two rule changes are viewed together, they represent a very
significant change away from the philosophy that it is more important
to finish than it is to rack up distance.

I'm not sure that's all bad, but it is a significant change

TA

A little bit, but really it is more an unintended effect of applying
assigned task rules to MAT and TAT. In an assigned task, if you
"finish" you made it all the way around the course, so it makes sense
to give everyone who does that the same distance points. In the TAT
and MAT, there is the option to "finish" by flying 61 miles, when
everybody else goes 250. On an assigned task, this would be counted as
"landing at an airport near the first turn" and get very few points.
On TAT and MAT, you get to call that a "finish" and get the same
distance points as everyone else who went 250 miles. Whether that's
400 or 600 points is a bit of a difference, but minor. We would still
be giving everyone who went from 60 to *249 miles the same distance
points.

So it's really about what do we think of as "finishing the task" when
everybody goes different distances.

John Cochrane

Hmm, good point about the meaning of 'finisher'. I can see this
change also increasing the motivation to avoid coming home early, even
at the cost of a significantly higher chance of landing out.

Right now, coming home early is much more preferable to landing out,
so the decision to turn back in the face of deteriorating weather is
usually a no-brainer. However, if turning back and taking a
significantly under-time finish is going to put your score among the
landouts anyway, why not continue and see what happens - maybe I'll
make it through that man-eating thunderstorm over unlandable terrain
after all? ;-).

Do we, as an organization, really want to be biasing the 'Sporting
Risk' equation in that direction?

TA

On Sep 21, 10:22*am, "Ken Sorenson" wrote:
The annual SSA/SRA Pilot Opinion Poll is open athttp://adamsfive.com/survey/surveys.php. The poll closes on October 18. You
are eligible to participate if you're on the US Pilot Ranking List
(basically if you've flown an SSA-sanctioned contest in the past 3 years)..
Please take a few minutes to respond to the poll - they're your Contest
Rules.

The position on the SSA Rules Committee currently filled by Hank Nixon was
up for election this year. The only nomination received was for Hank's
re-election. Since Hank ran unopposed, no vote is required.

Thanks.

Ken Sorenson
SSA Contest Committee Chair

Reminder- the US competition rules poll remains open until 10/18. If
you have not responded to the poll, please take a few minutes and
provide youir input.
Thanks
Hank Nixon UH
SSA Competition Rules Committee Chair