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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
I wrote a new "contest corner" for publication in the March Soaring
magazine. It explains the new rule by which you get credit for distance from the point where you exit the start cylinder in US contests. Rules geeks who just can't wait can read it on my website, http://faculty.chicagogsb.edu/john.c...t_anywhere.htm John Cochrane |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
On Jan 29, 4:15 pm, BB wrote:
Rules geeks who just can't wait can read it on my website, It says "Thus, if you start out the top or back and fly through the cylinder, you will be forced to start again when you exit the cylinder a second time. There's no point in trying. " This was kicked around on RAS. I don't agree you will be forced to exit the cylinder a second time. I don't see a discussion of an exit at the back followed by overflight of the cylinder, bumping prestart gaggles, but not descending below max start height. I admit I have not studied the new rule yet. What distance is used for a start out of the top with the cylinder being cleared before descending below max start height? It used to be distance B but now is it distance C (not depicted) where C is the distance between the first turn and the point where the cylinder was exited though the top. thanks Andy |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
*I don't see a discussion of an exit
at the back followed by overflight of the cylinder, bumping prestart gaggles, but not descending below max start height. With the proposed rule, you are allowed to exit out the back or the top, and then overfly the start cylinder. You are even allowed to dip in to the start cylinder, so long as you are not below MSH for 2 minutes. We thought of lots of ways to rule this out but everything we could think of would have led to a far too complex rule. There are enough problems with the 2 minute rule; imagine what happens if we make some rule forcing some separation from the start cylinder. If you blast through prestart gaggles above the start cylinder you will still be eligible for unsafe flying penalties, just as if you were blasting through gaggles on course. I hope this (plus other less formal sanctions from your fellow pilots, and a bit of common sense) is enough to keep it from happening. The rule is "experimental", being tried for regionals this year. One of many things we should keep our eyes on is whether such gaggle- bumping turns out to be a problem. If it does, we'll either make the rule more complex to try to rule it out, or we'll just scrap the whole business and go back to the old way of doing things. I envy you Western pilots. I haven't seen the top of the start cylinder in a long time. I admit I have not studied the new rule yet. *What distance is used for a start out of the top with the cylinder being cleared before descending below max start height? *It used to be distance B but now is it distance C (not depicted) where C is the distance between the first turn and the point where the cylinder was exited though the top. I'm not sure I follow this. If you thermal through the top of the cylinder, and you do not reenter, your start fix is where you cut the top of the cylinder. You get credit for distance from this point to the first turn. John |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
So if I grok all this krektly ...
* A start through the top, where the cylinder is never re-entered, is scored from the exit point. Cool I like that. * A start through the top, where the cylinder is re-entered for less than two minutes while on course, is scored the same distance (assuming no blasting through gaggles). * A start through the top, where the cylinder is re-entered for more than two minutes, will get a different start than the one through the top. So one has to be careful after a start through the top in the back of the cylinder. Several thousand feet of additional altitude may be necessary to stay clear of the cylinder, especially if the first turn is upwind. ~ted/2NO |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
On Jan 30, 9:51*am, BB wrote:
If you blast through prestart gaggles above the start cylinder you will still be eligible for unsafe flying penalties, just as if you were blasting through gaggles on course. I No disagreement here. Unsafe is unsafe and deserves the max penalty. However in Western contest the bottom of prestart gaggles can be thousand of feet above MSH allowing a back starter to bump gaggles without any conflict. I'm not sure I follow this. If you thermal through the top of the cylinder, and you do not reenter, your start fix is where you cut the top of the cylinder. You get credit for distance from this point to the first turn. Ok, that's what I would have expected but this situation is not depicted in the diagram. thanks Andy |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
So if I grok all this krektly ...
you grok mstly ok * A start through the top, where the cylinder is re-entered for less than two minutes while on course, is scored the same distance (assuming no blasting through gaggles). * A start through the top, where the cylinder is re-entered for more than two minutes, will get a different start than the one through the top. Just to be picky, you lose the earlier start if you enter the cylinder at all, and have been below MSH for two minutes prior to the subsequent exit from the cylinder. You don't have to be "in the cylinder" for 2 minutes, you just have to be "below MSH for two minutes" and then nick the cylinder. (Sometimes a simple rule leads to complex explanations) So one has to be careful after a start through the top in the back of the cylinder. Several thousand feet of additional altitude may be necessary to stay clear of the cylinder, especially if the first turn is upwind. Which is exactly the point. Hopefully, there won't be much traffic problem in such strong conditions. The big gaggle tends to sit at MSH - 50 feet in one big thermal with spoilers out doing 100 knots. Still, keep your eyes open. John |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
Couldn't a lot of this complexity be eliminated if we
scored to the best point for the pilot on the FRONT 180° of the clyinder? [or front 90°] This would better than the currrent optimal exit point, and less complex than the rule being considered now. Also with a 5 mile radius start clyinder the maximum distance gained inside the start cylinder would be 10 miles. It would often be hard to fly 10 miles upwind without decending back into the start cylinder. Chris Ruf |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
On Jan 30, 1:48*pm, chris wrote:
Couldn't a lot of this complexity be eliminated if we scored to the best point for the pilot on the FRONT 180° of the clyinder? But how would you determine where the start sector boundary was if an area task was being flown. If I remember correctly the old rule scores based on distance from the start point to the first area turnpoint (pilot choice) less the start cylinder radius. The 180 deg sector you propose would be at right angles to an undefined line that could have a wide range of bearings particularly if the first turn area is maximum diameter and also min distance from the start. So my conclusion is that your solution leaves the pilot with no way of determining the end points of the start sector. The end points of the sector only become defined after the pilot establishes the first area turn point. Andy |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
On Jan 30, 4:42*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jan 30, 1:48*pm, chris wrote: Couldn't a lot of this complexity be eliminated if we scored to the best point for the pilot on the FRONT 180° of the clyinder? But how would you determine where the start sector boundary was if an area task was being flown. *If I remember correctly the old rule scores based on distance from the start point to the first area turnpoint (pilot choice) less the start cylinder radius. * The 180 deg sector you propose would be at right angles to an undefined line that could have a wide range of bearings particularly if the first turn area is maximum diameter and also min distance from the start. So my conclusion is that your solution leaves the pilot with no way of determining the end points of the start sector. The end points of the sector only become defined after the pilot establishes the first area turn point. Andy Couldn't you just use the front 180° between the center of the start and center of first TP? [same way the current optimal point is established now] For MAT task the situation would be the same with each pilot having their own front 180° figured just like the optimal front point is figured now [line between start and 1st TP]. Chris |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
contest corner -- start anywhere
Couldn't a lot of this complexity be eliminated if we
scored to the best point for the pilot on the FRONT 180° of the clyinder? But how would you determine where the start sector boundary was if an area task was being flown. Yeah, it turns out front 180 is more complex than the current rule. We started with front 180 as the obvious way to stop the gaggle-bumping problem, but couldn't get it to work for this and a host of other problems. Among others: we do want people to be able to thermal out the top, at least if they are reasonablly close to the front of the cylinder. (You can't believe how much time and email bandwidth the RC consumed trying to get a workable rule here!) Also with a 5 mile radius start clyinder the maximum distance gained inside the start cylinder would be 10 miles. It would often be hard to fly 10 miles upwind without decending back into the start cylinder So don't do it. I regard this "start out the back" stuff as an unavoidable technicality with the rule, not a strategy the rules should encourage. We tried hard to rule it out completely, but couldn't come up with a simple good rule to do so. I will be delighted if starts out the back half of the cylinder turn out to be unworkable and hence extremely rare. In fact, if the opposite happens -- if clever starts out the back turn out to be a common and important strategy -- I'll bet there will be strong opinion that we should scrap the whole business. John |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
contest corner -- Soaring Magazine | BB | Soaring | 8 | February 15th 07 04:36 AM |
Safety Corner-Nov/issue | snoop | Soaring | 17 | November 12th 06 10:13 PM |
Did the F/A-22 Raptor turn the corner in 2003? | Henry J. Cobb | Military Aviation | 75 | January 15th 04 08:19 PM |
VNE and the "coffin corner"? | Jim | Soaring | 13 | December 17th 03 06:07 AM |
Aileron / flap corner drag ? | tango4 | Soaring | 10 | November 4th 03 11:08 AM |