Junior World Championships - FAI Rules Absurdity

" because IGC rules encourage longer tasking that use up the available day...."
Because the US rules seem to favor (and often result in) AAT's with very large circles..."

Minor correction: There is NOTHING in US rules about short tasks or large circle AATs.

"10.3.1.3 Normal Task - Tasks should make as full use of the available soaring weather as is practical"

Appendix: "- Try to use the full day, not merely the best part of it.."

The TAT appendix suggests 8-10 mile radius and 15 miles for the final steering turn.

Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.

John Cochrane

Hi 9B,

Agreed. A friend emailed me privately to point out the case of a 0 MC
finish. That would never have occurred to me and is another reason why I
don't compete - too chicken! ;-P


wrote in message
...
On Monday, August 12, 2013 8:41:57 AM UTC-7, Dan Marotta wrote:
Your analysis doesn't account for speed and the altitude gained by pulling
up after finishing.

Hi Dan,

Quite right, I didn't include any kinetic-to-potential energy exchange. The
number of feet involved can vary quite dramatically. In the end, because IGC
rules encourage longer tasking that use up the available day and because the
scoring for speed versus distance points yield a greater amount of gaggling
and start-gate roulette, I thought it was fair to assume that a significant
proportion of finishers would be at low McCready settings where the altitude
gained in a pullup would be on the same order as the height of obstacles to
be surmounted at the airport boundary. A 2-knot McCready starting speed
yields less than 100 feet in a pullup to best L/D speed.

There's no single precise answer to what McCready setting to use for such a
single-point analysis, but that's also beside the point. The real question
was, why is it preferable to set up the finish by rule in such a way that a
significant portion of pilots end up making low, slow, straight-in
approaches to the airport? Is it a superior way to set up the finish, and if
so, why?

9B

Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.


In the last 5 years I have yet to fly a contest in which a task was over
called, inversely, I have flown many in which tasks were under called or
the day was scrubbed way too early. Personally I much rather land out
due to an over call knowing that I used the whole day to the fullest
rather then come home with a sky in which I could keep flying for
another 2 hours!

I have not heard (maybe I chose not to listen...) a single pilot
complaining that a task was too hard or too long. I do (or choose to?)
hear many who agree with me that we need to use the whole day and need
more assigned tasks. Even at the last US 15m nationals, where Tim did
an excellent job calling tasks and using the whole day, we did not have
a single Assigned Task - this nats decided the US team that is going to
the WGC next year! We can complain to the CD's all we want but it is
the RC that has the authority, perhaps we need more emphasis on the
wording or clearer direction for the CD's coming from the top.

If you want to improve the results on the world stage look to the task
types and duration being flown at FAI contests, we need to train in
similar conditions to be competitive. For the pilots who don't want
that and rather come home early and have a beer the answer is simple -
SPORTS Class...

Luke Szczepaniak

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:59:41 AM UTC-4, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.





In the last 5 years I have yet to fly a contest in which a task was over

called, inversely, I have flown many in which tasks were under called or

the day was scrubbed way too early. Personally I much rather land out

due to an over call knowing that I used the whole day to the fullest

rather then come home with a sky in which I could keep flying for

another 2 hours!



I have not heard (maybe I chose not to listen...) a single pilot

complaining that a task was too hard or too long. I do (or choose to?)

hear many who agree with me that we need to use the whole day and need

more assigned tasks. Even at the last US 15m nationals, where Tim did

an excellent job calling tasks and using the whole day, we did not have

a single Assigned Task - this nats decided the US team that is going to

the WGC next year! We can complain to the CD's all we want but it is

the RC that has the authority, perhaps we need more emphasis on the

wording or clearer direction for the CD's coming from the top.



If you want to improve the results on the world stage look to the task

types and duration being flown at FAI contests, we need to train in

similar conditions to be competitive. For the pilots who don't want

that and rather come home early and have a beer the answer is simple -

SPORTS Class...



Luke Szczepaniak


In general, I agree with Luke that our tasking tends to be overly conservative at std/15/18m class regionals. I was personally *greatly* relieved by the tasking at Hobbs, but only because I was new to the environment and not flying very well. It's easy to say from the safety of my office that 15m & open nats deserves stronger tasking and if some crank takes an old glider to a nationals at a venue he's not really prepped to fly, well tough. I had fun. I think :-).

I did encourage the 15m task advisors & CD to use smaller circles on the TATs. But the thing is: weather is uncertain, the schedule is tight, the advisors are there to race, not task set and the pressure is on to crank out a task that works, *quickly*. Tasking well requires effort and more time and study than the CD and advisors are likely to have available. If you want really good, creative, sharp tasking, you probably need to make this a separate job as is done for WGC.

The game has changed since the days of yore when we really didn't know very much about the weather, the tasks were less flexible, the CD took his best guess and we dealt with the consequences (including a lot of land outs). We can likely do better today (with better wx information), but there is no getting around the fact that big circles and MATs are going to reduce the risk of landouts.

My $0.02.

Evan Ludeman / T8

For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

Sure, if your finish point is on the edge of the airfield, which most aren't.

This happened to me at Cordele in June. I won the day and when all logs but one were in it looked like I had won the competition overall by 1 point. In the end that last log (land out) pushed us past the limit, the day was devalued, and Wally won overall by 2 points. This to say it wasn't some weird IGC "loophole" which provided incentive for land outs at the JWGC. Our own rules can present the same scenario. It was an excellent team captain playing the game. If we spent more time playing that same way we would learn when to use tactics to our advantage (and when tactics are a waste of energy)..

Sarah Arnold

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:37:37 PM UTC-7, wrote:
For instance, do people prefer the FAI 4km/300 foot finish cylinder over the US 1-2 mile 500-1000 foot finish cylinder? If so, what is it that people find preferable about finishing at 300 feet 2.4 miles from the home airport? Just to do the math for you, that's a 44:1 glide from the finish to zero feet at the airport.

Sure, if your finish point is on the edge of the airfield, which most aren't.

Not to nit pick, but there is the issue of landing on the runway. Many, if not most, US glider fields are single runways and the options off runway heading are "varied" to say the least. We need to consider the altitude margin to get lined up on a runway so that you don't end up in a low, skidding turn to final at the end of your glide from the finish to the airport.

In the case of JWGC this year it was a 3km finish ring at 50m for std and 75m for club, to the middle of the airfield (roughly 2.5km wide) which made for approximately 35:1 for std and 23:1 for club. Easily achievable even with no energy (ask me how I know). But it was stressed many times that it was set at a height which is meant to the absolute minimum you could conceivably require (MC0 and a headwind) and you should not plan to arrive at that height with no energy. As far as I know no gliders that were at or above the minimum height that subsequently failed to make the field.

I think that is incorrect. I have a picture of a US junior team member's glider in a cut hayfield from a week ago - he stated that he was at the requisite finish height (no penalty) but had no extra energy to make the airfield and landed 0.8 mi short. Also, it was posted by the US Team captain at the WWGC that there was one injured pilot and separately a wrecked glider because in a close contest the pilots apparently ignored the very safety advice you mention in order to gain a few points by pushing it down to the top of the cylinder. This is not surprising in a world where team captains order deliberate land outs for less than 10 points "just in case".

Back to my original question. What is the compelling reason to adopt IGC rules in the US? Which rules will represent the big improvement and why? Finish is only one out of many rules, but I've heard no affirmative arguments yet.

I'd love to hear some specifics.

9B

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 1:52:11 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 11:59:41 AM UTC-4, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:

Short tasks and few enormous turn areas rather than a larger number of smaller turns are choices made by the CD and task advisers, often in response to pilot complaining. If you want the opposite, talk to the CD don't complain about the rules.











In the last 5 years I have yet to fly a contest in which a task was over



called, inversely, I have flown many in which tasks were under called or



the day was scrubbed way too early. Personally I much rather land out



due to an over call knowing that I used the whole day to the fullest



rather then come home with a sky in which I could keep flying for



another 2 hours!







I have not heard (maybe I chose not to listen...) a single pilot



complaining that a task was too hard or too long. I do (or choose to?)



hear many who agree with me that we need to use the whole day and need



more assigned tasks. Even at the last US 15m nationals, where Tim did



an excellent job calling tasks and using the whole day, we did not have



a single Assigned Task - this nats decided the US team that is going to



the WGC next year! We can complain to the CD's all we want but it is



the RC that has the authority, perhaps we need more emphasis on the



wording or clearer direction for the CD's coming from the top.







If you want to improve the results on the world stage look to the task



types and duration being flown at FAI contests, we need to train in



similar conditions to be competitive. For the pilots who don't want



that and rather come home early and have a beer the answer is simple -



SPORTS Class...







Luke Szczepaniak





In general, I agree with Luke that our tasking tends to be overly conservative at std/15/18m class regionals. I was personally *greatly* relieved by the tasking at Hobbs, but only because I was new to the environment and not flying very well. It's easy to say from the safety of my office that 15m & open nats deserves stronger tasking and if some crank takes an old glider to a nationals at a venue he's not really prepped to fly, well tough. I had fun. I think :-).



I did encourage the 15m task advisors & CD to use smaller circles on the TATs. But the thing is: weather is uncertain, the schedule is tight, the advisors are there to race, not task set and the pressure is on to crank out a task that works, *quickly*. Tasking well requires effort and more time and study than the CD and advisors are likely to have available. If you want really good, creative, sharp tasking, you probably need to make this a separate job as is done for WGC.



The game has changed since the days of yore when we really didn't know very much about the weather, the tasks were less flexible, the CD took his best guess and we dealt with the consequences (including a lot of land outs). We can likely do better today (with better wx information), but there is no getting around the fact that big circles and MATs are going to reduce the risk of landouts.



My $0.02.



Evan Ludeman / T8

MAT should be called as last resort task just to have contest day. Doesn't matter how you structure MAT it is very unfair task.
Not flown in Worlds, is good for new contest pilots only( Regionals)

1. Finishing task without claiming assigned TP and receiving speed points is very unfair and distorting results.
2013 18M nationals- long MAT , leading pilots 20 minutes ahead of the group arrive in the finish area, condition deteriorate
options:
Finish task 20 minutes under time and be safe
Fly to the next TP and risk land out or overtime.
Those which arrived low and late cut task short and were rewarded with the same points as pilots arriving 20 minutes earlier, here is better part -those who took risk and went to the next TP landed out or didn't reach TP and returned after time and were penalized heavily. Results slow pilots received bonus for poor results and were rewarded very well.

2. MAT has time limit, AST has no time limit , total different strategy absolutely useless for worlds preparations.

3. I think only 2013 18M Nationals had AST tasks (Thank You Eric)
No other FAI class had AST in 2013 and 2012 18M Nationals had only MAT.
We are flying gliders of L/d of 50 to cover 100 miles we need 4 thermals or less , how hard is to fly AST, it could be slow but who cares we are flying contest.

40 years ago we flew gliders of L/d 35 and we flew only AST and long tasks were finished. How hard it could be to fly AST in glider of L/d 50

4. Tasks set with time limit are most of the time under called and we are seating for 2 hours above airport waiting to start in the best 2 or 3 hours condition when we could fly 5 hours .
Driving 3 days to Nationals contest and fly MAT only is waste of time as it is no difference from OLC which could be done at home with more time of flying at fraction of cost.
Jerzy Szemplinski

Not to nit pick, but there is the issue of landing on the runway. Many, if not most, US glider fields are single runways and the options off runway heading are "varied" to say the least. We need to consider the altitude margin to get lined up on a runway so that you don't end up in a low, skidding turn to final at the end of your glide from the finish to the airport.

Why would you set a task that returns you on a heading other than for a direct landing? If you only have single runways why aren't you using control points to align pilots to them? Good safety concept regardless of finish height.


I think that is incorrect. I have a picture of a US junior team member's glider in a cut hayfield from a week ago - he stated that he was at the requisite finish height (no penalty) but had no extra energy to make the airfield and landed 0.8 mi short. Also, it was posted by the US Team captain at the WWGC that there was one injured pilot and separately a wrecked glider because in a close contest the pilots apparently ignored the very safety advice you mention in order to gain a few points by pushing it down to the top of the cylinder. This is not surprising in a world where team captains order deliberate land outs for less than 10 points "just in case".


Perhaps the penalty was not awarded immediately and they were not aware at the time (they took some hours to appear), but on that day (if I have the right one) they busted the finish height and were penalized accordingly - http://soaringspot.net/jwgc2013/resu...aily/day3.html

I don't think traces were published for the accident at WWGC so let's not speculate.


Back to my original question. What is the compelling reason to adopt IGC rules in the US? Which rules will represent the big improvement and why? Finish is only one out of many rules, but I've heard no affirmative arguments yet.

Are there affirmative reasons not to? If you want to be different you should have solid reasons for being so. I'm not convinced they're less safe (if you have a high finish, and someone arrives low but on glide, what are they going to do??) Learning new processes and procedures and how to fly them optimally is not something you want to be doing upon arrival at a world competition.

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:22:43 AM UTC-7, wrote:
Why would you set a task that returns you on a heading other than for a direct landing? If you only have single runways why aren't you using control points to align pilots to them? Good safety concept regardless of finish height.

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?

Perhaps the penalty was not awarded immediately and they were not aware at the time (they took some hours to appear), but on that day (if I have the right one) they busted the finish height and were penalized accordingly - http://soaringspot.net/jwgc2013/resu...aily/day3.html

I stand corrected. I should have checked the final scores. Odd that he thought he finished without penalty and was still nearly a mile short of making the airport. I don't think I've ever heard of that in the US.

I don't think traces were published for the accident at WWGC so let's not speculate.

Happy to wait and review later whether the pilots' intent was to finish at the top of the finish cylinder, which would be the fundamental issue in question. I can tell you from direct conversations with other participants in WGCs that they often set up final glides to finish at the top of the cylinder height that is given. They try to have extra energy, but it doesn't always work out. I think it's safe to say the fact that you see lots of glider limping back to the airport low and slow is not a random outcome - it is set up by the rules.

Back to my original question. What is the compelling reason to adopt IGC rules in the US? Which rules will represent the big improvement and why? Finish is only one out of many rules, but I've heard no affirmative arguments yet.

Are there affirmative reasons not to? If you want to be different you should have solid reasons for being so. I'm not convinced they're less safe (if you have a high finish, and someone arrives low but on glide, what are they going to do??) Learning new processes and procedures and how to fly them optimally is not something you want to be doing upon arrival at a world competition.

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.

This is an interesting question for another reason - 95% of US pilots will never fly in a WGC, so you are asking them to fly under rules that are potentially inappropriate for the environment in which they fly their entire lives in the name of a vague notion of consistency for the 5% that do. I think one could easily make the converse argument. The US rules are what they are and making a change will have an adverse impact on 20 times as many pilots as you argue. So again, what is the argument in favor of 50-100 meter finishes at 3-4 km other than the "why not" that you offer? What benefit does it serve?

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?

There must be a reason why the IGC set it up so that gliders are limping low and slow back to the airport post-finish - can anyone tell me? It logic doesn't leap out at me and I'd really like to know why people think it's a good idea.

9B