A fair opportunity to compete?

Good input Chad, but the issue at Parowan is one of timing. When a
storm forms over the mountain east of the airport, it covers the drop
zone in shadow. If the drop zone is moved west to the dry lake, its a
race to get a class up before the shadow covers the new drop zone. If
tow heights are raised to 2500 feet, that takes longer and the launch
goes even slower which makes the problem worse for the last few on the
grid.
JJ

Chad wrote:
Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
gate is open.

The question is not about relights. The problem, especially with
Parowan, is that sometimes the lift is a long way from the airport.
You can get off aerotow and find yourself scratching into a hole only
to land out. As the thermal heights increase, the thermal spacings
increases more or less proportionally. Using the same 2000' tow height
that works well in a humid landscape at sea level as at 6000'
elevation with high base thunderstorms around is not exactly "working
with nature." At a past Parowan contest, two pilots I know, one a good
one, choose not to launch because the drop point was beyond a safe
glide back to the airport. They didn't protest. From my perspective,
this problem has been growing with little attention from the "big
boys" until this year when someone protests and screws up a bunch of
people's scores. I'm neither supporting or criticizing the protest,
only saying that Sport Class was this course and heading for a while,
so it is no surprise. After learning of more of the facts here, I am
inclined to be less critical of the contest staff, and more critical
of the rules (and the Guidelines for Competition Director).

4-Zulu
Chad

On Jul 16, 5:15*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
On 5 July, 19:40, John Cochrane
wrote:
Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
from this very far distance.

Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
gate is open. Our rules specify that once the gate is open and the
competition has started competitors may take a launch until 1800hrs so
they have ample opportunity to compete if they do not suceed at first. Any
CD in the UK who allowed the cancellation of a comp day that had been
completed by the majority of the competitors because 3 pilots could not
stay up would very likely suffer total humiliation not to mention serious
abuse, both of which would be richly deserved.

While a CD in the UK will listen to what competitors are saying they DO
NOT take formal advice on conditions from competitors. We do have a non
competitor sniffer who relays back the conditions and of course we listen
to comments on safety matters. Competitors should not be used as advisors
in a formal sense, except on matters of safety, there is a huge conflict
of interest and the system is open to allegations of abuse.



I wasn't there but I think I understand the problem. This issue is
where does a CD draw the line.

Should the CD Open the Gate if a storm settles over the airport and
the last 3 competitors can not be launched?

How about if they can be launched but it is pouring rain in the drop
zone, with obviously no chance for them to climb out?

OK lets remove the rain but still obviously no chance to climb out.

The issue is even more of an issue at Parowan due to the distance of
the drop zone from the airport. If you can't climb immediately you
will land out. Even those that tried to move away from the bad weather
still ended up landing out.

On the day in question the conditions were obviously deteriorating as
they opted to cancel the launching of the following classes because
they were have a 100% relights/landouts. I wasn't there but I would
have to admit I would be seriously ticked off if I were leading the
contest and then were one of the last 3 to launch into conditions that
I obviously had no opportunity to climb out in. But I can also see
the point of the large number of contestants that were able to get
away in better conditions but then have the day scrubbed because only
a few gliders were not given the opportunity to get away. It is
unfortunate but in this particular situation I think scrubbing the day
was the appropriate thing to do. Of course not opening the gate to
begin with would have probably been the best thing, but I can see that
this might have been hard to see from any direction other than
hindsight. The CD probably didn't realize that all the glider
launching after a certain time were going to landout/relight until he
had already opened the gate.

Brian

Ok, I'm the CD. Two minutes before I open the gate, I call the last
launcher and ask how's he doing. He replies he's on a dead glide back
to the airport. I then call my sports advisor. He replies that he's at
12000 feet along with half the class, waiting for the gate to open.
What do I do?

I realize the late launchers are struggling and hold the gate opening
for 5 minutes.

Now, its 20 minutes after the last launcher
rolled........................what do I do? Do I scrub the day
because the last 3 launchers aren't getting a fair shot? NO, I realize
that this sport will never be 100% fair and equal. There is a luck-of-
the-draw issue with launch position and that is just part of the game.
I open the gate and the race is on!

Next day when I get 2 protests, I deny them!

JJ Sinclair, who has CD'd 3 national competitions without a single
protest.

Brian wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:15*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:
On 5 July, 19:40, John Cochrane
wrote:
Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
from this very far distance.

Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
gate is open. Our rules specify that once the gate is open and the
competition has started competitors may take a launch until 1800hrs so
they have ample opportunity to compete if they do not suceed at first. Any
CD in the UK who allowed the cancellation of a comp day that had been
completed by the majority of the competitors because 3 pilots could not
stay up would very likely suffer total humiliation not to mention serious
abuse, both of which would be richly deserved.

While a CD in the UK will listen to what competitors are saying they DO
NOT take formal advice on conditions from competitors. We do have a non
competitor sniffer who relays back the conditions and of course we listen
to comments on safety matters. Competitors should not be used as advisors
in a formal sense, except on matters of safety, there is a huge conflict
of interest and the system is open to allegations of abuse.



I wasn't there but I think I understand the problem. This issue is
where does a CD draw the line.

Should the CD Open the Gate if a storm settles over the airport and
the last 3 competitors can not be launched?

How about if they can be launched but it is pouring rain in the drop
zone, with obviously no chance for them to climb out?

OK lets remove the rain but still obviously no chance to climb out.

The issue is even more of an issue at Parowan due to the distance of
the drop zone from the airport. If you can't climb immediately you
will land out. Even those that tried to move away from the bad weather
still ended up landing out.

On the day in question the conditions were obviously deteriorating as
they opted to cancel the launching of the following classes because
they were have a 100% relights/landouts. I wasn't there but I would
have to admit I would be seriously ticked off if I were leading the
contest and then were one of the last 3 to launch into conditions that
I obviously had no opportunity to climb out in. But I can also see
the point of the large number of contestants that were able to get
away in better conditions but then have the day scrubbed because only
a few gliders were not given the opportunity to get away. It is
unfortunate but in this particular situation I think scrubbing the day
was the appropriate thing to do. Of course not opening the gate to
begin with would have probably been the best thing, but I can see that
this might have been hard to see from any direction other than
hindsight. The CD probably didn't realize that all the glider
launching after a certain time were going to landout/relight until he
had already opened the gate.

Brian

On Jul 17, 12:21*am, Brian wrote:
On Jul 16, 5:15*pm, Don Johnstone wrote:



On 5 July, 19:40, John Cochrane
wrote:
Charlie's report on the ssa website says it was the last three pilots
to launch who could not stay up, which seems a significant detail. If
the first to launch can find lift, get away from the airport, and wait
to start, but there really is zero lift in the airport area when the
back half of the grid launches, then the decision seems reasonable --
from this very far distance.

Something I do not understand here, why was the fact that 3 pilots could
not stay up a problem, that frequently happens in comps in the UK and the
competitors relight. There surely is not restriction on starting once the
gate is open. Our rules specify that once the gate is open and the
competition has started competitors may take a launch until 1800hrs so
they have ample opportunity to compete if they do not suceed at first. Any
CD in the UK who allowed the cancellation of a comp day that had been
completed by the majority of the competitors because 3 pilots could not
stay up would very likely suffer total humiliation not to mention serious
abuse, both of which would be richly deserved.

While a CD in the UK will listen to what competitors are saying they DO
NOT take formal advice on conditions from competitors. We do have a non
competitor sniffer who relays back the conditions and of course we listen
to comments on safety matters. Competitors should not be used as advisors
in a formal sense, except on matters of safety, there is a huge conflict
of interest and the system is open to allegations of abuse.

I wasn't there but I think I understand the problem. This issue is
where does a CD draw the line.

Should the CD Open the Gate if a storm settles over the airport and
the last 3 competitors can not be launched?

How about if they can be launched but it is pouring rain in the drop
zone, with obviously no chance for them to climb out?

OK lets remove the rain but still obviously no chance to climb out.

The issue is even more of an issue at Parowan due to the distance of
the drop zone from the airport. If you can't climb immediately you
will land out. Even those that tried to move away from the bad weather
still ended up landing out.

On the day in question the conditions were obviously deteriorating as
they opted to cancel the launching of the following classes because
they were have a 100% relights/landouts. *I wasn't there but I would
have to admit I would be seriously ticked off if I were leading the
contest and then were one of the last 3 to launch into conditions that
I obviously had *no opportunity to climb out in. *But I can also see
the point of the large number of contestants that were able to get
away in better conditions but then have the day scrubbed because only
a few gliders were not given the opportunity to get away. It is
unfortunate but in this particular situation I think scrubbing the day
was the appropriate thing to do. Of course not opening the gate to
begin with would have probably been the best thing, but I can see that
this might have been hard to see from any direction other than
hindsight. The CD probably didn't realize that all the glider
launching after a certain time were going to landout/relight until he
had already opened the gate.

Brian

Brian,

Well said. I was taught that it is best to win when your opponents
have done there best, not to wish them bad luck. The sign of a true
sportsman would be to say that it was best to cancel the day if some
of the pilots did not have a fair chance to compete.

Hello JJ,

I am trying to assess the situation from a long way away and little
actual information... just the daily reports from the contest and what
you have told us below.

I think there are situations in which just getting towed to the
designated area at 2000' is not necessarily a fair opportunity. For
instance, let's say you are the last one or two in the class to be towed
and while on tow, showers or whatever inundate the area or the day "just
quits", which we have all seen before. So did those who were towed into
dead air have a fair opportunity to compete? I think not.

Again, I don't know if that applies here or not... just some thoughts...

Larry



"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
:

(US) rule 11.1.1 states; A valid competition day is one in which every
regular entrant is given a fair opportunity to compete. What is the
definition of fair? I can tell you what I have used as CD in 3
nationals and several regionals over the last 35 years. The launch
should go without interuption. All contestants should be towed to 2000
feet in the designated release area. That's it, you are on your own
after release! There is no guarantee that you will find lift.

On day 3 at parowan this year, the launch went without delay and all
were released in the designated area at 2000 feet. Several pilots
didn't find lift and landed back. Some took re-lights and one landed
on the dry lake in the release area. About half the class found that
all important first thermal, the gate was opened 15 minutes after the
last scheduled launch and most completed the assigned task. Data
loggers were evaluated, scores computed and day 3 was a valid contest
day, right?

Not so fast! Two pilots protested that they hadn't been given a fair
opportunity to compete. The competition committee met and threw out
day 3. Their ruling may seem fair to the 2 protesters, but it was
unfair to the remaining 25 pilots in the class. The CD even went so
far as to state; If one of the protesters had found lift, he would
have come in 3rd for the day! Unbelievable! Just how he determined
that remains a mystery? There was one contestant who did place 3rd on
that day, but his performance was ignored. I tried to talk to the CD
with no response other than; You have the right to protest my ruling.

If my 3rd place had counted, I would have been 5th overall and 19
points out of 4th. I withdrew from the contest in disgust! What has
our competition come to? Are we all guaranteed lift? Who is to decide
if the actions taken by the pilot after release were the correct
ones? If you don't find lift, simply land back and file a protest!

I will turn 75 next month and Pat and I have been asking ourselves
just how much longer all this will be considered fun? In the words of
an old country song; That just about does it, Don't it?

Pat & JJ Sinclair

Your (US-centric) problem is introducing a subjective word 'fair' into
rules which humans have to apply (I am even willing to concede here that
lawyers are human).

What contitutes fairness? - exactly equal gliders and instruments (and
crew, etc, but you are not borrowing my wife), now that's fair. Or not,
depending on how you argue it.

In UK the siuation in question is simple. The gate opens, not at the
CD's whim, but with max height at 3,000ft AGL it opens 10 minutes after
the last glider in the class starts to be towed. For every 200ft added to
max height, add 1 minute. No ifs, no buts. The only thing the CD can do
after that is cancel the task and have a rebrief before the gate opens if
it is UNSAFE to continue.

Nobody pretended that gliding was fair when I was a boy in the Nationals.
The winner was the pilot with most points after the last day, however it
panned out.

At 07:30 06 July 2009, Peter Purdie wrote:
Your (US-centric) problem is introducing a subjective word 'fair' into
rules which humans have to apply (I am even willing to concede here that
lawyers are human).

What contitutes fairness? - exactly equal gliders and instruments (and
crew, etc, but you are not borrowing my wife), now that's fair. Or not,
depending on how you argue it.

In UK the siuation in question is simple. The gate opens, not at the
CD's whim, but with max height at 3,000ft AGL it opens 10 minutes after
the last glider in the class starts to be towed. For every 200ft added
to
max height, add 1 minute. No ifs, no buts. The only thing the CD can
do
after that is cancel the task and have a rebrief before the gate opens
if
it is UNSAFE to continue.

Nobody pretended that gliding was fair when I was a boy in the
Nationals.
The winner was the pilot with most points after the last day, however it
panned out.

With 20/20 hindsight everything is clear, unfortunately that is not, by
definition, available at the time a problem occurs.
Peter has described the UK position accurately except the Director can
also cancel a task for sporting reasons as well as safety reasons and may
also change the location of the drop zone. In the case described the
director could have cancelled launching, recalled the field and wither
scrubbed or rebriefed. If the gate had been opened then the result would
have stood. Once the gate is opened there can only be a retask if ALL
competitors land back.
Under UK rules it is not permitted to cancel a competition day if a
competitor finishes the task and in the case described above the day could
not have been cancelled. I have to say I have great sympathy with JJ in
this case as he, and the other competitors have been subjected to gross
unfairness. It is not their fault that the problem arose. The jury have
acted unfairly to many in an attempt to be fair to a few. I suggest you
need to look at your rules.
I know soccer is not the most popular game in the US but if after a game
it was discovered, and it frequently is, that a winning goal has been
allowed which was either not a goal or the result of a foul the result of
the match still stands.

My sympathies are entirely with John Sinclair. If all competitors are given
a launch before the start line opens, but a few of them fail to soar and
land out or land back, that is their problem.
It has happened to me to me on a couple of occasions, when I fell down and
was then unable to get away from a relight due to deteriorating conditions.
Tough t*tty.

I think this decision sets a dangerous precedent. If a competitor was
leading with one day to go, he could deliberately land out, then claim
that he wasn't given a fair opportunity to compete and get the day
scrubbed to the detriment of his closest competitors.

Derek Copeland

snip What is the definition of fair?/snip

JJ:

There is a jury at the contest appointed to make that determination.
They met, deliberated, and rendered a decision, not once, but twice.
If the system was completely objective, we would have computers do
every bit of the work, and we agree to work within those subjective
parameters when we take one of those limited Parowan contest slots.

ted/2NO

On Jul 5, 9:58Â*pm, Tuno wrote:
snip What is the definition of fair?/snip

JJ:

There is a jury at the contest appointed to make that determination.
They met, deliberated, and rendered a decision, not once, but twice.
If the system was completely objective, we would have computers do
every bit of the work, and we agree to work within those subjective
parameters when we take one of those limited Parowan contest slots.

ted/2NO

The rules specifically provide an appeal mechanism for decisions by
the CD.

8.5 ‡ Appeal of a decision of the CD shall be directed to the SSA
Contest Committee Chairman and must include all relevant documents
such as the written protest, the CD's written decision, statements of
witnesses, etc. Written notification of intent to appeal must be given
to the CD within 24 hours of the CD's decision and the appeal must be
delivered to the SSA within ten days of the decision. The Chairman of
the SSA Contest Committee shall seek advice from members of the SSA
Rules Committee, and shall make a prompt response, in writing, giving
a decision and the reason for it.

To the best of my knowledge, JJ did not
1. File any protest
2. File any appeal

As the scorer for the contest, member of the competition committee for
the contest and rules committee member, I can assure all that the
decision to cancel the day was not taken lightly - especially given
the great flights by some of the class members. It is also true that
(in my opinion) the situation was not absolutely black and white. As
reported by Mike the Strike, conditions in the drop zones were rapidly
deteriorating. The following class was not even launched.

What I don't understand is what "resigning in disgust" accomplished.
Had the defined process been followed it would have not only subjected
the decision to more experienced review, but also helped to clarify
the decision making guidelines for this type of situation for the
future. This would not only help the sport but also the volunteers
that we depend on to stage our competitions.