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

WGC Final Report, John Good



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 21st 20, 02:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Springford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 285
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

How to fix future WGCs

1. Take away the team flying
Ads
  #12  
Old January 21st 20, 02:22 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Springford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 285
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

How to fix future WGCs so they measure pilot ability, not the ability of countries to cheat within the rules. Level the playing field for small countries that can not field large complex teams. After all, is the WGC not meant to determine the best pilot?

1. Take away the team flying
a. one pilot per country per class
b. no pilot-to pilot communication except safety calls
c. no pilot to ground communication

2. Take away the ground "team"
a. no tactical information to pilots from any source outside their eyeballs and on-board flarm


3. Institute harsh penalties such as Tijl suggest that would disqualify the team for the duration of the competition and ban the offending pilot for life.

4. Apply pilot event marker controlled starts to minimize start gate games.


This trajectory the WGC is on is destructive as shown by the blatant cheating that occurs within loopholes while trying to get "your" country on top instead of trying to determine the best pilot at the competition.


  #13  
Old January 21st 20, 04:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tom BravoMike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 230
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 1:17:36 PM UTC-6, wrote:
https://ussoaringteams.org/john-good...c#comment-5830


Eureka! The solution is in 'cockpit voice and video recording' for all flights, easily achieved with commonly available matchbox size cameras with prices beginning at $35. At 720p resolution, a medium capacity microSD card would save the whole flight; a small external source for power supply will be needed. Everything still way more compact than the photo cameras we used in the past to take pictures of the turning points. Any illicit help from the ground (radio or image) would be recorded. The recordings provided along with the IGC logs, checked at random and/or on demand. A substantial penalty for a missing recording. Garmin Virb and latest GoPro cameras (higher price mark) provide geo-referencing, too. How many cars drive these days with 'dash cameras'?
  #14  
Old January 21st 20, 09:13 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Martin Gregorie[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 428
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:01:24 -0800, Dan Daly wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 7:46:03 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:
That wouldn't circumvent manual Flarm-ID changes at any given moment
within the flight (with an LX9000 connection for instance).

You can also quickly power your Flarm off an on after take-off, thereby
creating a new random ID.

I am sure if the IGC asks for it, FLARM can quickly bring out a feature
that triggers a ID-randomizer every 15 minutes during the flight. But
that would not even be necessary in my opinion.


Also, if the punishment of having a private ground-based Flarm receiver
in a team is disqualification for the whole team, and if the rules on
this are 100% clear and widely known, who in their right mind would do
this?


I would be surprised if changing the ICAO ID didn't violate the IGC file
security and validation.


Its not recorded anywhere in an ICG flight log, so no problem there.

I've written and tested a Java class for decoding IGC logs, so needed to
understand precisely what's in every record type (except the G record,
whose exact format is logger-specific. Thats because the checksum format
is not defined by the standard: its specified and known only by the
manufacturer.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

  #15  
Old January 21st 20, 11:55 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 567
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

tiistai 21. tammikuuta 2020 6.04.24 UTC+2 Tom BravoMike kirjoitti:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 1:17:36 PM UTC-6, wrote:
https://ussoaringteams.org/john-good...c#comment-5830


Eureka! The solution is in 'cockpit voice and video recording' for all flights, easily achieved with commonly available matchbox size cameras with prices beginning at $35. At 720p resolution, a medium capacity microSD card would save the whole flight; a small external source for power supply will be needed. Everything still way more compact than the photo cameras we used in the past to take pictures of the turning points. Any illicit help from the ground (radio or image) would be recorded. The recordings provided along with the IGC logs, checked at random and/or on demand. A substantial penalty for a missing recording. Garmin Virb and latest GoPro cameras (higher price mark) provide geo-referencing, too. How many cars drive these days with 'dash cameras'?


130 competitors flying 6 hrs+, you would be staring at 800 hrs of videos per day in WGC. Should be doable by 100 volunteers over night, though. But what if pilot have a small in-ear headphone for listening to radio?
  #16  
Old January 21st 20, 01:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Mike N.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 105
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 2:17:36 PM UTC-5, wrote:
https://ussoaringteams.org/john-good...c#comment-5830


It seems clear that the intent and spirit of the 15 minute delayed tracking rule were well understood by all.
Using an unsecured tracking site to eliminate the 15 minute delay is a violation of the intent and spirit of the rule.
While it could be argued that there was no specific rule against using the unsecured GFA tracking data, the intent and spirit of the 15 minute delayed tracking rule were still being violated.
The honorable action for whomever on the Australian team, discovered the unsecured GFA site would have been to report it to the competition organizers so that the issue of un-delayed / unsecured GFA tracking could have been mitigated in some fashion.
Competitive soaring to me is a wonderful thing, testing pilot skill against pilot skill at a high level. Using loopholes to violate the intention and spirit of rules clearly created to create a level playing field, degrades and dishonors our sport to just another "best cheater wins" sport.
  #17  
Old January 21st 20, 02:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 145
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

John did a great job on the summary, but I'd like to think there is another path forward in the rules.


1) Like Golf, the rules could be focused on testing pilot skill assuming the pilots police themselves. The idea that some rule would not be practical because it is hard to enforce seems contrary to the sort of folks that soaring draws. This might include the idea that self enforcement draws a smaller penalty than getting caught.

2) The current rules are written in the negative which creates loopholes for what you have forgotten. If, instead they listed what was permitted, then the opportunity for the holes might be less. For example, the pilot is only permitted information from the following electronic means...

I think depending on the race, there is room for wildly different permitted lists. Grand Prix might expect a ground controller and full tracking with the controller on the podium along with the pilot. A pilot testing race might go the opposite with a very short list.

  #18  
Old January 21st 20, 02:46 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim White[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

At 00:36 21 January 2020, John Foster wrote:
On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 5:23:28 PM UTC-7, mart wrote:
I completely agree that it should be pilot skills and not technology

that=
determines the winners.
=20
=20
Your idea is unfortunately very easy to circumvent, put someone in a

car
=
near the end of the runway at launch time with a reciever and write down
co=
de and rego.=20
=20
I would more go for random turnpoints in a circle so that every pilot

fli=
es the same distance but you wont know if the pilot you see has done more
o=
r less of the task than you did.

I think it could simplify a lot of things if they changed the rules to be
m=
ore like sailboat racing. The start line opens at a specific time, and
who=
ever crosses the line first is the winner. None of this delayed start
stuf=
f. Everyone is racing against each other in real time. The guys behind
ca=
n see where the leaders are climbing, and maybe make up some time, but in
o=
rder to win, you have to be in front. Much like they do in SGP racing.
Th=
at format just makes more sense to me. I realize it is quite a bit
differe=
nt from how things have been done for many years, but it could eliminate

a
=
lot of the advantages folks would get from this whole live-tracking

thing.

Distance Handicap Tasks do this great for handicap competition even with
pilot selected start time. see www.handicaptask.uk

  #19  
Old January 21st 20, 02:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim White[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 281
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

At 09:13 21 January 2020, Martin Gregorie wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2020 17:01:24 -0800, Dan Daly wrote:

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 7:46:03 PM UTC-5, Tijl wrote:
That wouldn't circumvent manual Flarm-ID changes at any given moment
within the flight (with an LX9000 connection for instance).

You can also quickly power your Flarm off an on after take-off,

thereby
creating a new random ID.

I am sure if the IGC asks for it, FLARM can quickly bring out a

feature
that triggers a ID-randomizer every 15 minutes during the flight. But
that would not even be necessary in my opinion.


Also, if the punishment of having a private ground-based Flarm

receiver
in a team is disqualification for the whole team, and if the rules on
this are 100% clear and widely known, who in their right mind would do
this?


I would be surprised if changing the ICAO ID didn't violate the IGC

file
security and validation.


Its not recorded anywhere in an ICG flight log, so no problem there.

I've written and tested a Java class for decoding IGC logs, so needed to
understand precisely what's in every record type (except the G record,
whose exact format is logger-specific. Thats because the checksum format
is not defined by the standard: its specified and known only by the
manufacturer.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org


Below is detail from my Flarm generated IGC trace:

LFLA111322011
LFLA111323 STEALTH OFF
LFLA111323ID 2 DDE24

As you can see it does show my ICAO number. You are however correct that
Log records (prefixed by L) are not used when generating the G record for
integrity checking.

Jim

  #20  
Old January 21st 20, 03:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Nadler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,460
Default WGC Final Report, John Good

On Monday, January 20, 2020 at 8:11:09 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I flew in one of the first "bomb burst" starts about 25 years ago.
There were about 50 ships, all at cloud base when the go signal was sent.
We almost all came back saying that we never wanted to do that again.


I remember that one - terrifying.
IIRC that was also the USA intro of the DG-600, for sale by mid-contest...

Both concentrating everyone at the start was bad AND the first few gaggles
was quite dangerous. Even in SGP format (limited number of contestants) the
starts have been much too exciting...
 




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
2015 Nephi OLC/XC Final Report [email protected] Soaring 21 July 8th 15 10:56 PM
Day 4 at Perry and final report Frank Paynter[_2_] Soaring 0 April 25th 11 04:39 AM
Region 10 South Report: Final Day Bob D Soaring 0 August 16th 09 05:00 AM
Final Report of SSA FRTF Now Available [email protected] Soaring 2 October 28th 07 02:23 AM
Annual Report Final. "Long" NW_PILOT Piloting 22 October 28th 04 07:20 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:27 PM.


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