Hard Deck

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
"Something is keeping pilots from racing in droves" from up-thread.


This comes up periodically along with a lot of heart-felt opinions. Below is a note to the US RC that I sent about 6 years ago based on an actual online survey with a statistically significant percentage of potential racing pilots in NY/NJ/PA. It's a bit long, but the conclusion is that there isn't one primary reason folks (at least here in the East) don't compete. The single biggest reason was that people don't have the time to go spend a week at a contest (especially if it gets rained out) given all of the other competing demands for time and money.

Here's the full note. I can make the actual Survey Monkey raw data available should anyone be interested.


Hey guys,

Just passing along the results of a survey I put together last year. The objective was to find out a) if there were a lot of potential racing gliders in our local area that were sitting around in trailers and hangars not doing much and b) why the owners of those gliders weren't participating in races. The results were interesting and a little surprising in some ways and pretty predictable in others. Figured you guys might be interested as having some hard data (albeit from only one region) that might lead to better informed priorities.

I started out by going to every glider operation in Region 2 asking the leaders to help get me in touch with folks who owned gliders. This covered primarily Wurtsboro, Middletown, Blairstown, Van Sant, Beltzville, PGC, Brandywine, and Morgantown. Figure that's eastern PA, NJ, and Southeastern NY.. I cross-checked that against the FAA database of registered gliders in those states. I think I was able to "find" about 2/3 of the registered gliders based in this area along with their owners/pilots. I definitely think I got the majority of glass single place ships covered (figuring those are the most likely to be used for XC and racing). So, while not complete, the survey should at least be statistically significant.

The survey and results are in the attached spreadsheet. I haven't tried to make it pretty, but I did grab screenshots from the survey in the PDF. Here's the big pictu

- 66 glider owners responded.
- 2/3 of those claim to "regularly" fly XC (more than 50KM from the home field). I thought that was a pleasant surprise; I would've figured half or less. We've been working for at least 15 years in Region 2 to drive participation in the OLC and local contests, so maybe that's having some impact.
- About half claim to participate in local/online contests (OLC and the Governor's Cup)
- Almost the same number claim to have particpated in an SSA Sanctioned contest in the last 3 years. That was surprising... half the people who own a glider in our area say they flew a contest. I did a little cross checking and the ranking list, and those numbers seem to be plausible. I suspect that's better than in many other regions.
- When I tried to get at the "why you don't participate" reasons, the results were fairly scattered. If you look at only the "Top 3 Reasons" (i.e. those that were ranked as the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd roadblock), it was in order:
* Time
* Something Else
* Rainouts

The "Something Else" was set up to let folks give their thoughts/concerns, so the answers are all over the map. The results are similar if you look at only the Top 2 reasons. The something else freeform responses are included in the spreadsheet.

My takeaway here is that there's not some silver bullet that would suddenly increase particpation. HOWEVER, it does suggest that rules/fairness/competition concerns that tend to occupy the minds of the hardcore racing pilot are (not surprisingly) not nearly as important to the fence sitters. IF we're serious about increasing participation (and if that's the charter of the Rules Committee or the SRA or some other interested group), the lessons seem to be:

- Test out more long-weekend races or other formats that minimize having to take long vacations.
- Create a structure that would allow newbies and folks with families to feel comfortable (e.g. the Mifflin beginner's contests, Caesar Creek XC and Racing Camp, etc.)
- Create a more structured marketing and awareness campaign targeted at the potential competitors. For instance, I think a list comprising pilots who ARE on the OLC list with some reasonable number of points (say 750 or more) and are NOT on the SSA Ranking List would be a great place to start using publicly available data.

Enjoy. This gave me something to do on a very cold November day!

Along this line, and only in region 2 AFAIK.....there were "little guys meets". These were run on 2 successive weekends (no vacation time) and were broken into silver and gold classes.
I believe they were handicapped in both classes, did the full "regional contest routine" (pilots meetings, tasking, turnpoints, final reporting, everything) EXCEPT it was not a sanctioned contest so no points on the line.
The dividing line was basically level of SSA badge until you "overflew the silver class" and were bumped into the gold class.
So yes, a glass gold pilot may be up against Ron Schwartz in his 1-26, Ron may very well win a day!

This was a good way to get started, I know, that was my first couple "contests". I believe P3 and others in the area did the same.
This was waaaayyyyyyy before "rookie camps" as run in some locations now.

I think both have a place as a starter to contests.
Part of it is, when you may not fly on a local given day, a "contest" means, "go fly, do your best".

I know several at our club (WH and others) were brought up with this mindset. While I have not flown much recently, I used to drag peeps out on a lot of days just to "go somewhere" as well as Hank and others.
Heck, sometimes I went "blasting off" in our 1-26 (sn002) prompting glass guys to follow. Figured my performance handicap would make others feel better following in a 30-40:1 ship compared to the "light wing floater".

I have no good answer to elevating contest participation.
I know there was a time that for me, work travel, family stuff (2 growing kids), etc. made it hard to go to contests.
Since then, lack of currency (my past comment that our "rule" was 40+Hrs in that ship, that season before contest day 1) was sorely tested.
Frankly, I don't do 40hrs a season now......hope to change that.

Just sorta watching to see where peeps are going with this, adding comments as I think fits.

Carry on.

Seems there are good ideas ...... and the only thing you know is "if you do the same thing you will get the same result"

What is to stop any CD from making a Hard Deck at any Regional (maybe without penalties to begin with, just verbal flogging) - see if it draws people or if the pilots like it - was it safer.

Why must we buy it when we can rent it first. Seems to me Regional s is we need to experiment more.

Rules are what competion is all about - imagine a chess game where you move any piece how ever you feel - it is about optimizing performance within the constraint of the Rules - without Rules, you have an outing not a contest.

WH

What P3 said. Despite the impressive Reg. 2 numbers, most soaring pilots DON'T want to fly contests...for various reasons. No problem, unless they're misinformed about what really goes on at a contest. That's possible; there's still a problem with the nagging rumor that when bad weather puts the whole contest in doubt, the pilot with the lowest cumulative score at that point is offered up as a human sacrifice hoping for sun.

When I hear that a lot of pilots elsewhere mention safety as a big impediment, I suspect some survey bias. Not just "is the need to compromise your safety and incur added risks in contest flying a big reason why you don't do it?" Safety is a concern for all. But it's also a socially acceptable way to decline without worrying about coming across as timid or fearful. I'm not saying everyone who cites safety is being dishonest with him/herself or with others. But competitive gliding is stressful, expensive, time consuming, frustrating, depressing at times, selfish.... I could on (to the point of talking myself out of flying this year!). But you REALLY have to want to do it to overcome all the practical reasons not to.

Frankly, if a pilot tried it once and didn't come back because of safety, I would suspect gaggle flying more than anything. You don't encounter that density and intensity outside of competition. The risks of landing out are also perceived negatively by almost everyone no matter your experience.

Yes, competitive soaring has inherent risks. That's not the same as assuming that if we implemented a wholesale hard deck, launch grids around the country would suddenly fill up like free seats at the Super Bowl. Gaggle and landout risks would remain.

Contest pilots I know ARE worried about safety. And potential midairs are high on the list--with good reason. They're (fortunately) rare. But almost all of my near disasters have involved close encounters with other gliders. That's why most contest pilots bought into FLARM.

Just my opinion.

Chip Bearden

Perhaps we could get more participation and promote xc soaring by having a few more OLC games type meets. I know this does nothing to pick National Champion but it might help increase the number of people flying and get some inactive members back where they can fly with friends in a low stress environment, stay for the whole meet or just part, weak day and don't want to chance it, don't. Not only do we need more people racing, but we need more people in our sport!

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-8, wrote:
What P3 said. Despite the impressive Reg. 2 numbers, most soaring pilots DON'T want to fly contests...for various reasons. No problem, unless they're misinformed about what really goes on at a contest. That's possible; there's still a problem with the nagging rumor that when bad weather puts the whole contest in doubt, the pilot with the lowest cumulative score at that point is offered up as a human sacrifice hoping for sun.

When I hear that a lot of pilots elsewhere mention safety as a big impediment, I suspect some survey bias. Not just "is the need to compromise your safety and incur added risks in contest flying a big reason why you don't do it?" Safety is a concern for all. But it's also a socially acceptable way to decline without worrying about coming across as timid or fearful. I'm not saying everyone who cites safety is being dishonest with him/herself or with others. But competitive gliding is stressful, expensive, time consuming, frustrating, depressing at times, selfish.... I could on (to the point of talking myself out of flying this year!). But you REALLY have to want to do it to overcome all the practical reasons not to.

Frankly, if a pilot tried it once and didn't come back because of safety, I would suspect gaggle flying more than anything. You don't encounter that density and intensity outside of competition. The risks of landing out are also perceived negatively by almost everyone no matter your experience.

Yes, competitive soaring has inherent risks. That's not the same as assuming that if we implemented a wholesale hard deck, launch grids around the country would suddenly fill up like free seats at the Super Bowl. Gaggle and landout risks would remain.

Contest pilots I know ARE worried about safety. And potential midairs are high on the list--with good reason. They're (fortunately) rare. But almost all of my near disasters have involved close encounters with other gliders.. That's why most contest pilots bought into FLARM.

Just my opinion.

Chip Bearden

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 1:23:17 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
snip
My takeaway here is that there's not some silver bullet that would suddenly increase particpation. HOWEVER, it does suggest that rules/fairness/competition concerns that tend to occupy the minds of the hardcore racing pilot are (not surprisingly) not nearly as important to the fence sitters. IF we're serious about increasing participation (and if that's the charter of the Rules Committee or the SRA or some other interested group), the lessons seem to be:

- Test out more long-weekend races or other formats that minimize having to take long vacations.
- Create a structure that would allow newbies and folks with families to feel comfortable (e.g. the Mifflin beginner's contests, Caesar Creek XC and Racing Camp, etc.)
- Create a more structured marketing and awareness campaign targeted at the potential competitors. For instance, I think a list comprising pilots who ARE on the OLC list with some reasonable number of points (say 750 or more) and are NOT on the SSA Ranking List would be a great place to start using publicly available data.


A little data goes a long way.

Some additional food for thought.

Of the 450-odd pilots on the Pilot Ranking List (having flown at least one contest in the past three years):

- 40% flew only one contest in three years
- 20% flew two contests
- 20% flew an average of one contest per year
- 20% flew an average of 2.25 contests per year

That means 112 pilots represent 50% of the contest entries and 224 pilots represent three-quarters of the contest entries. That's pretty concentrated.

Over the past dozen years:
- The number of pilots on the PRL has fallen by an average of 2.6% per year, or twelve pilots per year
- The number of contest entries per year had fallen by 3.5% per year, or 15 entries

I'd guess that there are another couple hundred who are still active but haven't competed in the past three years. I'd be curious to compare that list to the active OLC list and de-dupe it to see who are the obvious candidates and whether there is a racing value proposition that might appeal.

A few years ago, the RC invited local OLC pilots gather one evening during the RC meeting. The anecdotal evidence is that the most active OLC pilots decline to race for reasons that seem quite different from Erik's survey, so I for one would be interested in learning more form a broader group of OLC (or other XC) pilots.

Another datapoint is that we saw pretty good uptake in pilots flying the daily racing task at the last Nephi OLC event. I think some of this is that there was only daily, rather than cumulative, scoring so pilots didn't feel pressure to fly every day (or submit their scores even if they did).

I'd also be very interested to see a mixed Regional/OLC event - more participants would certainly help organizer economics and it's a good opportunity for neophytes to "ride along" with racers.

Andy Blackburn
9B

"A few years ago, the RC invited local OLC pilots gather one evening during the RC meeting. The anecdotal evidence is that the most active OLC pilots decline to race for reasons that seem quite different from Erik's survey, so I for one would be interested in learning more form a broader group of OLC (or other XC) pilots. "

I have raced in several disciplines over the years- Professional drag racing in Funny Cars, roadracing motorcycles and sports cars, motocross and dirt track etc., and the one thing these had in common was that the course is the same for all competitors. And you can actually SEE it!

When I transitioned into aviation sports (hang gliding and now soaring), I discovered to my delight (and sometimes dismay) that the course simply isn't the same for everybody and changing conditions are far more likely to reward (or punish) choices that are made if you do not or cannot recognize these changes.

Organized soaring competitions are based on guessing on a set of weather conditions and setting a task early in the day, and then coming up with a valid task for competition. I am basically flying for fun, and the tasks that are set in advance often conflict with my desire to just fly and enjoy myself. A task that takes me into areas of mediocre conditions, when obviously better flying is to be had in another direction is what I like about flying OLC vs. organized competition.

If a cloudstreet sets up 90 degrees to what would have been a task leg, I would prefer to take the opportunity to extend my flight, as opposed to following the assigned course. I often tell people who ask why I don't enter competitions that I am fully capable of making all the wrong decisions I need without the help of a Competition Director or Task Committee.

Don't get me wrong; I have the highest respect for competition pilots and the serious racing decisions they need to make to participate in a very demanding environment. It just isn't my cup of tea (or mug of beer.)

OLC competition allows me and even encourages me to push my X-C skills beyond merely staying aloft and avoiding yardwork. I have flown over 80,000 km in the last six years, and the OLC was the driving impetus. I enjoy my flying, but have no particular desire to enter into organized soaring competition, as I do not enjoy the sometimes intense personalities (although many other personalities are a great load of fun!). The lack of freedom in making my own decisions (good or bad) also plays a major role in my decision to avoid contest flying.

And finally, I think that the three hour tasks are basically a waste of the day, when soaring conditions can last eight hours or more in the summer. Milling around for an hour waiting for the gate to open and then hauling ass for three hours, leaving several hours of prime conditions unused seems, well, maybe not criminal, but certainly irresponsible when yardwork looms over your head.

Then again, at least organized competition forces you to leave your yardwork behind because of the need to travel to the contest site. ("Honey, I would just love to de-thatch the lawn and spread a truckload of fertilizer with you, but I have already sent in the entry fee for the Region 77 Qualifier, Beer Drinking Contest and Barbecue Evaluation Seminar. You wouldn't want me to miss out on that, would you? Oh, wait! Maybe you should come along! It will be fun!)

Andy,

Thank you for sharing that. In reviewing the SSA's financial report i noticed a downward trend in entry fee revenue. This explains it. Any thought on how to make olc pilots take up flying in contests?

R6N is advertising its regional (running concurrent with the US Juniors Camp Contest) as a "rookie camp" but i suspect the hard part is getting the message out to potential first-timers. We're sending posters out to all nearby soaring clubs but its hard to find new blood. I'm open to any suggestions..

- Chris Schrader

At 18:58 31 January 2018, Jim White wrote:
At 02:15 31 January 2018, Michael Opitz wrote:

George Moffat and the sailing crowd have always proposed to
drop
both the individual pilot's best and worst days because "that's
what
they do in sailing". You might be able to do that in a Grand Prix
format where each day counts the same. I don't see how we can
do
that as long as we have devalued days. A pilot can be a day
winner
on a very difficult 600 point day, and be forced to drop his
day win because all of the other contest days weren't devalued,
even though he had another day where he only got 850 points
compared to that other day's winner?

Please tell me how you propose to make that fair?? I can't see it
being done without a total overhaul of the scoring system.

RO

I have never understood why a difficult day gets devalued. Seems
to me tha
difficult days are a better test of skill.

Devaluation also has the effect that CDs try to set 3 hour tasks.
Why i
the window is short?

Not devaluing days would remove some complexity and IMO
improv
competitions!

Jim

I don't know what your devaluation rules are in the UK, but in the
USA, the rules say that the daily task should be set so that the
winner should take at least 3 hours to complete it (as a fair test of
nationals level soaring skills). There are times when the weather
window will not allow the total time needed to launch and fly a
three hour task, but a two hour (or 1.5 hour) task would be "in the
cards" in order to get a valid contest day in the books, and to
possibly preclude a "rained out contest" (due to not having the
required amount of contest days). Instead of counting the
shortened days equally to the full length days, they are devalued
proportionately. Otherwise a 5 minute error could cost a pilot
twice as many points on a 1.5 hour task compared to a 3 hour
task. As the task time decreases, the points per minute goes
up quite quickly unless devaluation kicks in.

Other devaluation rules pertaining to a low percentage of task
finishers due to an over-call or weather related luck factors have
been added as well. If there is a speed task that nobody is able to
finish (in the USA rules), the winner on a day like this would not
be eligible for any speed points - only distance points - and thus
would only be eligible for a maximum of ~600 points (if landing
just short of the actual finish line - arc, point, goal, etc). At one
time there were scoring systems (FAI rules?) for when there were
no finishers, the day would revert to full value based on distance
achieved, as it was seen as a fair distance task at that point. I
don't know if the FAI still has that in place or not.

I am not on the USA rules committee, so I'm sure there are
others that are much more familiar with the reasons why certain
rules were written the way they were. Those people with a
better understanding can add to and correct any errors that I
have made here.

RO

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:24:17 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:49:35 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Just an idea.

Here's mine: Shame the offender at the pilots' meeting. Display the offending bit of the flight trace and give the offender the "opportunity" to give the day's safety talk.


Ooooo, I like it. We did something similar in Reg 12 for our Spring safety seminars. From the previous season's whoopsies, I culled a list of willing presenters to give the "Scared Witless" vignettes.
It was an audio version of "I Learned About Flying From That". Obviously they had to be survivors, and Willing. It was a very popular format - five minutes and done.

In the case of egregious or repeat violations of good sense, get the safety committee together and discuss a points based penalty (or DQ if it comes to that). I loved Cindy's story about OF, sounds like that they got that one right on the money.

Thanks, Evan and others. I make the stories personal to make them pertinent.

I will occasionally protect the guilty. One pilot told his 'Witless' story, proudly, smilingly. When we got to the part where - 'how would you change this to avoid the whole scenario?' -- there was a blank stare by the pilot.
'Uuuh, I didn't crash, it was a great job.'
The audience sneaked a bunch of quick looks at me.... and the show went on.
It was a GREAT teaching moment, that I had Not Scripted. Even ~8 months later,
he didn't know what was off-the-page wrong about his thinking.

With a savvy CD/CM, the public replay could be a useful disincentive. And a delightful relief from, " I got high, ran fast; got low, slowed up; went the other way and got home first" talks.

Of course, my interest here has more to do with actual contest safety, less with who gets to go to WGC.


Consensus on what's unacceptable behavior. That's the trick.....
and I too know many local pilots who avoid racing due to 'crazy behavior'.
A group of pilots, that's fun.
Sometimes we call it a race/contest.

Best wishes,
Cindy B