A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

WWGC.



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old January 19th 20, 11:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
mart mart is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 18
Default WWGC.

I have heard from several pilots that it is very easy to crack flarm instruments to give full information.
Ads
  #42  
Old January 19th 20, 01:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default WWGC.

On Sunday, 19 January 2020 10:06:16 UTC, mart wrote:
I have heard from several pilots that it is very easy to crack flarm instruments to give full information.


I don't know that there's any cracking involved.

For the watchers, if someone can set their own instrument or web browser to apply a label to an anonymous contact, all they need to do is wander around the launch grid or watch it take off.

There have been some interesting responses in this discussion.

The technical possibilities and rules and the way people react with them are in a constant state of evolution.

At the first international contest I went to, I was in a car, attempting to drive around a bit in front of the pilots and report on the weather. When I agreed to do it, I assumed it would be a waste for 80 or 90% of the time, but if it paid off once or twice it could be worth it. And that's about how it turned out. Several other teams were doing this too. Were we all cheating? I don't think so.

Before the internet, crews could visit the organisation's met person and get updates on the weather, including satellite pictures, and broadcast this to the pilots. Maybe some teams did this and others not. One or two teams even brought their own met. I can remember one day winner saying he'd watched a thunderstorm at midnight over what would turn out to be part of that day's task, and decided it might be not quite as good just there as the forecast.

At one contest (before GPS), another team manager told me afterwards one of his pilots said the pilots from another country had just missed the turn point. A few seconds later the error was announced on the other team's frequency ...

At another, one of our pilots said he was just approaching being back overhead on the way north. Eight knots right over the aerials, I replied. Someone in another team had said this a few seconds earlier.

At yet another, our two pilots in one class were about 30 km to the south, wondering where they were going to get the final decent climb in a not very promising sky. There might be a useful cloud a mile or two south of the last turn, I said. How did you spot that, I was asked afterwards. To be honest, I'd been watching it a few minutes, and I wasn't sure. It looked like it might be falling apart as you got a chance to approach it, so I nearly didn't mention it, then George Moffat said something nice about it.

If information is available, someone will be using it. Until or unless new policy and/or rule is drawn up to exclude it.

I understand the sophisticated end of variometer/navigation development has reached the point where integration of Flarm derived info can tell you on the screen what the nearby gliders' climb rates are. People are asking what skills are actually still being tested in a contest, whether gaggle flying is likely to increase even more, how to avoid mass starts, and so on.

So to some extent I'm surprised ground crews might still see a need or temptation to be stuck to a screen on the off chance they could spot and announce the slightly better thermal just ahead of their pilot, and risk being annoying by saying so.

As Al McN said above, we've now changed our UK rules so crews don't give any information at all to pilots. This will cut out any boring info from watching live tracking sites, though some of us might still look a couple of times, especially as the finishes get more likely, but it would also cut out all the old occasional other info we might have been able to send, like there was a heavy shower 20 minutes ago a few km out, probably still some sink as several people still landing short, or the sea air has just come in, or those two rivals have just landed out so you don't need to panic that last climb is a bit slow.

At one international event, the win in one class was joint by three in the same team. They'd been a handful of points apart in the morning (indeed all the way through the comp), so the ideal result entailed some ground help calculating the required synchronisation of finishes. I can remember the whole team jumping for joy in the evening as they discovered it had worked. No radio would cut that out too. Is this an individual or team sport, or both?

So no radio is one solution, but would it be what people want?
  #43  
Old January 19th 20, 02:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 364
Default WWGC.

On Sun, 19 Jan 2020 03:42:55 +0000, Michael Opitz wrote:

At 23:58 18 January 2020, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2020 10:50:34 -0800, Tom BravoMike wrote:

Somehow nobody objects to 'ground controlled' world records -

see the
Perlan project. And it is a sort of an ongoing world competition -

with
great expenses involved. Just a thought..


Record setting is a totally different game. No technology is ruled

out
and it can be individual or a group effort.

I was surprised to see how high Perlan 2 was being towed since

they got
use of the Grob towplane, so looked at the rules for the absolute

gliding
altitude record. It turns out you can tow as high as you like and

the
flight counts as a record provided the glider climbs at least another
5000m (16350 ft) after release.


--
Martin | martin at Gregorie | gregorie dot org


Jim Payne has said that on some days where the stratospheric wave is
working to high altitudes, the lower tropospheric waves are not working
so well. To have to use lots of precious battery life and oxygen to
muddle up through the lower wave system detracted from the time that
they could use to focus on the high altitude objectives, so they got a
tow plane that could reliably get them to the bottom of the
stratospheric system without a hassle. The additional 5000 meter gain
turned out not to be an issue with the heights they were able to
achieve. That whole program is way out our normal frame of reference
and comprehension.

I had guessed that battery capacity might be a limiting factor for Perlan
2 high altitude duration, especially when you consider that cabin heat
has to be battery driven, and hence might limit achievable overall
height, so wasn't too surprised when they got hold of the Grob as their
towplane, so thanks for confirmation that battery capacity was the driver.

The one thing that did surprise me was that the absolute glider altitude
record rules take the form they do and allow such high tows when all the
badges (and national height records?) are for height gain above release
height.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

  #44  
Old January 20th 20, 03:54 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default WWGC.

On Sunday, 19 January 2020 12:31:39 UTC, wrote:

At yet another, our two pilots in one class were about 30 km to the south, wondering where they were going to get the final decent climb in a not very promising sky. There might be a useful cloud a mile or two south of the last turn, I said. How did you spot that, I was asked afterwards. To be honest, I'd been watching it a few minutes, and I wasn't sure. It looked like it might be falling apart as you got a chance to approach it, so I nearly didn't mention it, then George Moffat said something nice about it.


Apologies if anyone might have thought George M was helping the opposition, or I was taking unfair advantage

This was a Pre-Worlds, and a practice day.
  #45  
Old January 20th 20, 07:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
mart mart is offline
Junior Member
 
First recorded activity by AviationBanter: Jan 2007
Posts: 18
Default WWGC.

Hi Andy, you will have to strip search pilots and gliders to prevent them bringing mobiles on board.

So it is either completely let go of this type of regulation since it is so easily circumvented or use an honesty system and hope for the best.

Or, and i think that is the best option, find a new competition format.
  #46  
Old January 20th 20, 08:24 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default WWGC.

As a rule, competition pilots do not cheat, and do not like cheaters. Some rules maybe difficult to police, but even the existence of them strongly discourages cheating. If we make only rules we can police with 100% certainty all the time, we are left with very little. The wwgc penalty send the exact message IGC discussed in previous plenary, ground controlling is not what we want in this sport. I seriously doubt any team will risk chance of penalty in future competitions.
  #47  
Old January 20th 20, 11:51 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 339
Default WWGC.

I agree with krasw but additionally I think that the penalty for a team organization knowingly cheating should be expulsion and disqualification of the entire team from the contest. Such a measure would ensure a high level of compliance with rules that might not be 100% enforceable by technical means alone.
  #48  
Old January 20th 20, 03:57 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 552
Default WWGC.

On Monday, 20 January 2020 12:51:13 UTC+2, wrote:
I agree with krasw but additionally I think that the penalty for a team organization knowingly cheating should be expulsion and disqualification of the entire team from the contest. Such a measure would ensure a high level of compliance with rules that might not be 100% enforceable by technical means alone.


Giving penalty that drops pilot from medals is quite serious in my opinion. If whole team would have been disqualified, would that help this sport, or perhaps do harm instead? I'm sure organizers had this whole spectrum of penalties to consider (from no penalty to disqualification) and they did their best in extremely difficult situation.
  #49  
Old January 20th 20, 04:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Nick Kennedy[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 152
Default WWGC.

This just blows my mind.
I've live in Australia and worked there.
Spent 4 full comps seasons Hang Gliding there.
This seems to me to be so out of character to the typical Aussies I know.
Cheating? NFW!
Its just not in their DNA if you ask me.
Does anyone really know what happened?
I'm not on FB
Did they use public tracking that was available to all with no time delay?
Or Did they hack the delayed tracking system?
How did they get caught?
Are team leaders in radio contact with their team all day?
What tipped other team leaders off that something was Up?
  #50  
Old January 20th 20, 05:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 339
Default WWGC.

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:57:06 PM UTC, krasw wrote:
On Monday, 20 January 2020 12:51:13 UTC+2, wrote:
I agree with krasw but additionally I think that the penalty for a team organization knowingly cheating should be expulsion and disqualification of the entire team from the contest. Such a measure would ensure a high level of compliance with rules that might not be 100% enforceable by technical means alone.


Giving penalty that drops pilot from medals is quite serious in my opinion. If whole team would have been disqualified, would that help this sport, or perhaps do harm instead? I'm sure organizers had this whole spectrum of penalties to consider (from no penalty to disqualification) and they did their best in extremely difficult situation.


It hasn't harmed athletics to ban individuals who cheat (and Russia as a whole) for long periods
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Pre- WWGC and Australian Club and Standard Class Nationals JS[_5_] Soaring 3 January 9th 19 11:53 AM
WWGC Duster Soaring 14 June 3rd 17 04:17 PM
Podium Finish for Sarah at WWGC!! Linwood Stevenson Soaring 6 July 15th 13 01:56 PM
2013 WWGC .... Ron Gleason Soaring 9 July 12th 13 09:51 PM
Few impressions from WWGC 2009 Szeged (HUN) db Soaring 1 August 4th 09 03:01 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2020 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.