Junior World Championships - FAI Rules Absurdity

9B,

It's just the nature of the range of variables. Pilots flying ATs have to read the weather, terrain and clouds just the same. But the small turnpoint forces RACING rather than making big bets on those variables over a wide range of area. This introduces luck and chance, ie stumbling on to something others may not find, good or bad.

Comically, AATs are referee to as HATs (half ass tasks) by many of the better pilots I know...and I agree.

These should be absolute last resort tasks, not the norm.

Sean

Ok. To summarize a bit from the last few posts, the main problems with the US rules a
1. HATE MAT tasks.
2. Pretty much dislike AAT tasks
3. Want an adrenaline rush on final glide

To me, the first two are an issue between the CD and the pilots at the contest. No rule changes need to be implemented to cover those 2 issues. The only drawback I foresee is that out of 30 pilots at a contest, 5 will want AST's called every day and the other 25 will not return next year because they prefer MAT's and AAT's and don't want to fly for 5 hours on task (6+ for the day). The vocal minority keeps this issue up and running in RAS.

The third is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Both rule sets include procedures that must be obeyed to return to the airport. I compete in a few locations where you could be dead if you land 1/2 mile short of the airport. Sagebrush and lava are not forgiving to fiberglass moving at 48 knots. Agreed, the penalties in the US rules are severe for low returns and speed vs. distance points. You don't need a contest to practice low contest finishes. To prep for an FAI contest, you can do that on any flight at your home airport. So other than getting a thrill and doing it in front of the other contest pilots, what is the point? For me, landing safely without damage to my glider (or me) after many hours in the air is more important than an adrenaline hit.
Craig Reinholt

On 13/08/2013 21:50, Jim White wrote:

The only truths I see about the IGC rules (95% of the world) and the US
rules (5% of the world) a

Guys, we love you to bits but this does look like a bit of a recurring
theme to us in the rest of the world. Maybe the US self belief that the US
knows best is what drives you to success but to many in the wider world it
looks a bit daft.

World IGC Rules - US different
World Metric - US Imperial
In particular for commerical aviation:
World Tonnes - US Pounds
World HPa - US Inches of Mercury

A lecture on the evils of exceptionalism from someone with an address in
the UK shows either immense chutzpah or complete ignorance (well, it is,
after all, the UK).

The reasons for differences in commercial aviation are mainly because
the US effectively invented it and is still the largest single part of
it but Europe (including its UK satellite) sulkily refuses to recognise
this historical fact. While picking up on altimeter sub-scales, he
ignores the actual face of the instrument which the UK also calibrates
in feet while the "World" does it in metres.

While mentioning lbs as a US pecadillo (which was still how the UK
measured most aircraft weights last time I was there), he ignores the
face of UK ASIs still stubbornly calibrated in knots. He also ignores
the UK use of nautical miles on DMEs rather than km.

Finally, I'm surprised he doesn't note the interesting fact that in the
UK it's only legal to sell wine in metric glasses (tiny by world
standards, but metrically tiny - 125ml, 175ml, etc!) but beer has to be
sold in pints or fractions of a pint. Who's running their own private
race there!

I'll leave out the typically smug UK politics but just mention that only
the UK could see the way English words are spelt by themselves as
"World". Guess what spellings are used in teaching English in China?

GC


Then there is:
World Colour/Favour/Labour - US Color/Favor/Labor
World Government Transparancy - US Gov Secrecy
World Whistle blower hero - US Traitor
World Left leaning liberalism - US Right wing imperialism, I am joking but
to many it looks just like that, more war war than jaw jaw.

Believe me, there is a big wide world out there, that has many varied
cultures and customs, and that is learning how to work together in many
ways for the common good.

You do not need to stand apart or 'lead' all the time, it would be good if
the US sometimes decided to join in. Go on, you can do it!

At 05:58 15 August 2013, GC wrote:

The reasons for differences in commercial aviation are mainly because
the US effectively invented it and is still the largest single part of
it but Europe (including its UK satellite) sulkily refuses to recognise
this historical fact.

I think perhaps that George Cayley's coachman, both Brits, has been
accredited with the first manned heavier than air flight in 1853.

The Graf Zeppelin performed the first commercial transatlantic flight in
1929 - German?

The first commercial Jet was the de Havilland Comet

The confusion between Hg and HPa is a safety issue not a cultural one. It
should be resolved.

Beer in the UK is sold in metric measures except in pubs. This is a
cultural thing (see later in my post about diverse cultures) not a safety
issue.

I'll leave out the typically smug UK politics but just mention that only
the UK could see the way English words are spelt by themselves as
"World". Guess what spellings are used in teaching English in China?

Surely you know where the English language comes from? Oh dear.

GC, reread my post. I tried to make my points without insulting anyone. Now
look at yours. Enough said about diplomacy.

Jim

At 05:58 15 August 2013, GC wrote:

The reasons for differences in commercial aviation are mainly because
the US effectively invented it and is still the largest single part of
it but Europe (including its UK satellite) sulkily refuses to recognise
this historical fact.

I think perhaps that George Cayley's coachman, both Brits, has been
accredited with the first manned heavier than air flight in 1853.

The Graf Zeppelin performed the first commercial transatlantic flight in
1929 - German?

The first commercial Jet was the de Havilland Comet

The confusion between Hg and HPa is a safety issue not a cultural one. It
should be resolved.

Beer in the UK is sold in metric measures except in pubs. This is a
cultural thing (see later in my post about diverse cultures) not a safety
issue.

I'll leave out the typically smug UK politics but just mention that only
the UK could see the way English words are spelt by themselves as
"World". Guess what spellings are used in teaching English in China?

Surely you know where the English language comes from? Oh dear.

GC, reread my post. I tried to make my points without insulting anyone. Now
look at yours. Enough said about diplomacy.

Jim

Ignoring all the crap about national differences - which really are like seasonings and provide some variety.

I think it's more concerning that larger teams have influence over the competition that smaller teams don't have. Image what would happen if the German team started to do this as matter of course - any team with less than 3 competitors in a class would be at a disadvantage. Hardly sporting, even if it is well within the letter of the rules.

The last day at competitions is really a very different thing than the previous days. All sense appears to go out the window, tactics change, risks are taken that would never otherwise be taken.

How much of this is actually because the point spread at the end is consistently so small?

On Thursday, August 15, 2013 5:02:37 PM UTC+9:30, 7C wrote:
Ignoring all the crap about national differences - which really are like seasonings and provide some variety.



I think it's more concerning that larger teams have influence over the competition that smaller teams don't have. Image what would happen if the German team started to do this as matter of course - any team with less than 3 competitors in a class would be at a disadvantage. Hardly sporting, even if it is well within the letter of the rules.



The last day at competitions is really a very different thing than the previous days. All sense appears to go out the window, tactics change, risks are taken that would never otherwise be taken.



How much of this is actually because the point spread at the end is consistently so small?

I believe it's only at the juniors you're allowed a team of 3, everywhere else it is just 2.

Well - a couple of reasons that I can think of immediately. Simultaneous direct landings onto a single runway for a large number of gliders present challenges that are significantly alleviated with a little extra altitude. Even with a 500-1000 foot finish I have seen very sporty landings when a contestant stops in the middle of the only runway. I can only imagine what happens when you don't have any option but to follow him in directly without delay. Steering turns out on course close to the finish can create high-speed converging traffic (this is often inherent if they are to be effective in steering). We had a fatal midair on the US a couple of years back under this sort of configuration. Setting the control points significantly further out means that you are restricting your tasking options. You also could require gliders to orbit say 20 miles out while they still have altitude and and get permission for a properly sequenced direct landing prior to finishing (probably would meet with significant resistance), or you could restrict contests only to airports with more than one runway (also not likely popular). Of course all these suggestions address the symptoms rather than the root cause, so why not address the root cause?

You'll always have pilots converging if they're coming back to the same airfield. The idea is you have them do it at a time with a lower workload, at a reasonable height (~10-20k out) so if something does happen they've a hope of jumping, and at regular cruise speeds rather than the higher energy typical of the finish. It makes sense regardless of finish heights.
What do you mean by 'sporty' landing? If someone stopped midway down a single strip airfield with gliders coming in behind I'd expect them to get a dangerous flying penalty.


I think the affirmative reasons are the entire logic why the US rules are different today - in order of priority: lives, injury and property damage. I have surveyed contest pilots on this point specifically and by a significant majority they enter into their glide computer the finish height you give them - a subset add some extra margin, but dive it off at the finish if they any excess energy. They don't end up at or near the finish height you give them by happenstance. The lower you sent that number the more likely you are to have gliders limping in on low, slow "direct landings". Most airports have traffic patterns because it is viewed as safer, not less safe as you argue. I would need more education as to why low and slow is a safer way to manage post-finish approaches to landing.

Perhaps there's a difference in terminology here, but do you really have airports that require circuits/'patterns' to be flown during competitions? My experience has been that circuits simple don't scale to large fleets and direct landings are much, much safer.

As for prioritizing 'lives, injury and property damage', well, let me just say 'FLARM'...

You did offer that if the airport situation didn't allow for it, extra finish height is in order. Very few US airports have the kind of 10-gliders-across, 1 or 2-km long runways in any direction you see in other countries. So by your own admission are you saying that the US rules are more appropriate for US contest sites anyway?

Keep in mind the IGC does not actually define the size of the finish ring or the finish altitude. What I'm trying to determine is why there seems to be an allergic reaction to setting those finishes below circuit height. Of course the site has to be taken into consideration when setting the finish - my site has 8km of dense city with obstacles on approach, and I would not suggest a 50m 3k finish over that (although I don't see why the case you present is a problem - even with space for only one glider at a time, if everyone lands long what's the problem...?).