Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 10:30:04 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
I note that the rules committee felt that UK style Handicap Distance Tasks
did not give enough benefit to warrant the difficulty of scoring.

In the UK we ran handicap distance tasks in several regional contests last
season and the feedback was almost universally good. Some high handicap
(fast) gliders didn't like it as they found that that they had to work
harder to stay ahead!

To overcome the scoring difficulties, we wrote some software and worked
with Naviter to make it easy to use See You Competition to score the tasks.
This has worked well.

If you use some other software then it could be harder although the process
is simple for those that complete. In theory all gliders flown equally well
will complete in the same elapsed time. Compare the handicapped speed of
each glider to the winners' for speed points. Distance points are the
same.

The difficulty comes with determining distance points for land outs. In the
UK we accept that there are some anomalies between handicaps on the grounds
that the point is to get round.

I am keen to facilitate universal acceptance of this exciting new format as
I believe that it will attract more pilots into competition. If I can help
please give me a shout.

For more information or to download the software go to
www.boffins.co.uk/gliding

Jim

The RC continually looks at innovations in racing formats that can up the competitiveness and enjoyment of the sport and/or broaden its appeal to more pilots. We had a very interesting racing/OLC discussion the evening following this year's RC meeting. There are discussions underway to try some informal experiments at Nephi this year (thanks Bruno!).


Handicapped distance task is an interesting format. There are several questions/issues that made it challenging for use in sanctioned contests, particularly in the immediate future.

1) Scoring - there is only so much capacity to integrate new features into our scoring infrastructure. Experimental task formats that require lots of coding end up low on the priority list until/unless there is known strong demand from pilots. Conversely, manual scoring, we have learned form experience, is simply too much to ask of over-taxed contest organizers, so we don't see a lot of eagerness to try new formats that would prove out the appeal.. Catch-22.

2) One of the concerns with the format that I have heard is the requirement that lower handicap pilots have to fly farther than high handicap pilots. In non-flatland flying in particular this can mean out of good lift bands, into thunderstorms, etc. The format has a bit less courseline flexibility than an AAT or MAT, so it's a potential fairness issue.

3) We already have two variable distance tasks that don't exactly mimic this format, but serve the same basic purpose.

4) The rules are already filled with complexity - this is one more change in mindset that pilots have to get their heads around in terms of mastering strategy and tactics. We get a lot of feedback that introducing changes that don't address a part of the sport that is demonstrably broken drives pilots up the wall.

If there is a big groundswell of local contests that start using this format and/or organic pilot demand, it'll certainly get more attention.

9B

:-)

:-)

:-)

!!!

Sensible, intelligent decision. Bravo. Golf clapping...

On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:42:33 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 4:40:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
If you go back and look at pilot opinion polls from a few (6 - 10 iirc) years ago, you'll see multiple complaints about guys flying above cloud base.


Evan

Most of that is pre-start wispies. That's why we instituted the procedure for start height 500 feet below cloudbase. In my recollection it was not a complaint about serious cloud flying, i.e. gaining thousands of feet by going up inside cus.

John Cochrane

JJ reported knowing of 3 pilots icing up on a thunderstorm day. Not easy to do outside of clouds.
While we can expect (many/most?)pilots to have smart phones, some of which may have a app that could permit cloud flying for a short time, there is no justifiable reason to allow true AHRS equipment is contest sailplanes. The only reason to have that equipment is to cheat on the requirements of VFR flight that we all agree to abode by when we enter a contest.
Removing the express prohibition essentially says it is OK to make cloud flying a part of the sport.
If some foolish pilot wants to try to smart phone fly, they will likely scare themselves pretty quickly.
My bigger personal concern is the obvious extension to opening of the prohibition against information coming in on the phone. With better flight tracking, it is quite foreseeable that we will have crews watching tracks and performance of competitors and feeding that information to the pilot either by voice, or text. If you start late and your crew can tell you where the guys ahead of you are doing well, you have a huge advantage.
While true enforcement is not practical, retaining the existing philosophies and rules leaves and unsportsmanlike conduct penalty still available, if appropriate.
Availability of weather information is claimed to be a safety advantage, yet the last time this was polled(2013?) the strong majority of pilots said they wished to retain the current prohibition.
FWIW
UH


With JJ's help I took a look at the flights in question (thanks JJ!). There is some reason to believe that with advances in technology we will be able to detect, with increasingly reliability, egregious and/or repeated excursions into IFR-land. Steve's point about climbing up the face of a cu (I've done it myself) remains one of several complications that need to be considered.

More broadly, the RC, like King Canute, understands that we are kidding ourselves when we stand at the shore and command the incoming tide to retreat. Technology marches on relentlessly. Once it becomes affordable and pervasive we need to face that reality - and we have. Tasking contest organizers with onerous "stop and frisk" responsibilities has never been broadly practical so it is at best a fig leaf - and a wilting one at that.

The prohibitions on cheating by getting outside help and on busting FARs remain in place and violations should be handled in the harshest possible terms short of lethal injection. Means to improve detection of violations is in my view worthwhile. $50 cockpit video recorders anyone? They are out there.

9B

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 9:33:11 AM UTC-7, Mike the Strike wrote:
Firstly, it's impossible to keep glider pilots away from or out of clouds even in contests.

Mother Nature does a pretty good job of this given prevailing pilot skills. If they enter cloud, they'll spiral dive out the bottom in a few seconds - and they won't be anywhere near the top of the score sheet. Absent instrument training, currency and competency, gyro gizmos won't help.

From the scoring standpoint, the only guy one has to worry about is a highly competent instrument pilot who has jumped through all the hoops to get glider instrument trained - the CD will probably know who these are and keep a close watch.

I am sure few pilots don't spend much time in cloud, but a lot do get closer than they should. At a recent contest I watched two contestants 500 feet above me as they disappeared in and out of cloud along a cloud street. Closer than I was comfortable with!

I like Andy's idea of the cockpit camera!

Mike

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 2:56:23 PM UTC-5, Mike the Strike wrote:
I am sure few pilots don't spend much time in cloud, but a lot do get closer than they should. At a recent contest I watched two contestants 500 feet above me as they disappeared in and out of cloud along a cloud street. Closer than I was comfortable with!

I like Andy's idea of the cockpit camera!

Mike

Like an "ankle tracking bracelet" for pilots on probation! I love it!

On Wednesday, 14 January 2015 06:53:47 UTC-7, Richard wrote:
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:59:50 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The Iphones really aren't the problem. Flight computers with AHRS, miniaturized ones you can keep in your pocket, and the fact you can cloud fly with a fast update moving map GPS is the problem. We had a bunch of wildly complex rules about disabling AHRS in flight computers, which nobody was paying any attention to. The clamor for simpler rules is also loud.

VFR flight only is expressly part of the rules and philosophy.

No voice or data communication from people on the ground will be a clear and explicit part of the rules and philosophy.

As you said, we have to rely on unsportsmanlike conduct for these. Writing rules and enforcement procedures to ban carriage of the equipment is just not feasible any more. If you're going to have a crew sending up data, and you start winning contests, you're going to have to put a lot of effort in to keeping it a secret.

BB

John,

I have been to 4 contests since the wildly complex rule about disabling the AHRS in flight was adopted. I complied with the rule at all 4 contests.

Although the CD's had no idea what I was talking about or doing when I showed them and disabled the Butterfly Vario AHRS.

I agree that we should simplify the rules.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

At least one in UT understood!

On Wednesday, January 14, 2015 at 8:53:47 AM UTC-5, Richard wrote:
On Monday, January 12, 2015 at 2:59:50 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The Iphones really aren't the problem. Flight computers with AHRS, miniaturized ones you can keep in your pocket, and the fact you can cloud fly with a fast update moving map GPS is the problem. We had a bunch of wildly complex rules about disabling AHRS in flight computers, which nobody was paying any attention to. The clamor for simpler rules is also loud.

VFR flight only is expressly part of the rules and philosophy.

No voice or data communication from people on the ground will be a clear and explicit part of the rules and philosophy.

As you said, we have to rely on unsportsmanlike conduct for these. Writing rules and enforcement procedures to ban carriage of the equipment is just not feasible any more. If you're going to have a crew sending up data, and you start winning contests, you're going to have to put a lot of effort in to keeping it a secret.

BB

John,

I have been to 4 contests since the wildly complex rule about disabling the AHRS in flight was adopted. I complied with the rule at all 4 contests.

Although the CD's had no idea what I was talking about or doing when I showed them and disabled the Butterfly Vario AHRS.

I agree that we should simplify the rules.

Richard
www.craggyaero.com

Wildly complex defined as disabling the AHRS feature through available software and being prepared to show it is disabled if asked.
Butterfly has the feature and has provided a way to comply. They worked with the US RC and the result is a good one in my view.
When I started racing, an official went around and checked that the gyros were out. We're a lot more trusting these days. Fortunately sportsmanship seems to prevail.
UH

Wildly complex defined as disabling the AHRS feature through available software and being prepared to show it is disabled if asked.
Butterfly has the feature and has provided a way to comply. They worked with the US RC and the result is a good one in my view.
When I started racing, an official went around and checked that the gyros were out. We're a lot more trusting these days. Fortunately sportsmanship seems to prevail.
UH

Way below is copied from the last worlds rules.

Since our contests are used to choose US Team members to race on the World level, should not we train to the World level and use their rules where reasonable? Some may claim several of our current rules are not enforceable, but again some have not witnessed that. Sportsmanship is displayed by many, but not by all. Some have witnessed the highest seeded pilots say if they aren't caught for the rule violation, by contest personal, they sure aren't going to turn themselves in. Yes, some contests have been won by rule violations that are known with no action taken.

Not only are contest management responsible for rule enforcement, but the entrants are also charged with this, as its an agreement between the FAI, SSA, entrants and contest management that the contest shall be held according to the rules.

On one hand, some wish to conform to IGC rules, then change ours, for whatever self serving needs. This has been going back and forth for some time. Yes, change is needed. Hopefully, it will be in the proper direction. Not from extreme views but from reasonable discussions.


33rd World Gliding Championships
www.wgc2014.eu
Central Gliding School tel: +48 65 529 24 00 Page 4
ul. Szybowników 28
64-100 Leszno www.wgc2014.eu
Poland www.cssleszno.eu

D. Technical requirements
Glider avionics (including flight recorders, navigation and anti-collision devices) must be firmly mounted to the
glider. Any instruments, accessories nor baggage cannot limit pilot's vision nor interfere with glider controls.

Use of FLARM anti-collision devices is mandatory.

D.1. Mandatory additional equipment
In addition to the mandatory equipment listed in the rules (see Bulletin no 1), pilot shall possess:
a. cellular (GSM) or satellite phone to be carried on board,
b. glider anchoring equipment (for gliders not stored overnight in hangar or trailer) - see par. D.5,
c. hardware and software for downloading his/her flight recorders,
d. for Team Captains: GSM cellular phone with SIM card of Polish operator.

D.2. Instruments that must be removed from the sailplane
Bohli, Schanz, KT 1 and other gimballed compasses, turn indicators, artificial horizons and any other devices allowing
to fly without ground reference must be removed from the glider.
Software artificial horizons integrated with FR must indicate in their IGC files that AH function is disabled.
Doubts about eligibility of other devices will be discussed with Stewards.

Best. Tom #711.

The pilots suspected of logging a little unauthorized IFR were all commercial pilots with current instrument ratings.
I believe this can be controlled with a stern warning given at all mandatory pilot meetings and a 2 year suspension of racing privileges for anyone found guilty.
The RC is checking with the NWS to see if archived data can be used to prove flights into known cloud areas.
We need to put a stop to this right now,
JJ