Ok, we are going to go with the front half circle thing. Let's start
with that as an assumption and that we "give it a try for a year" as
John C is suggesting. What then is the problem with the refinement
suggested by Andy to center the half circle on the line connecting the
start center to the first turnpoint center? This sounds like a MUCH
less complex setup than what is currently be suggested and MUCH easier
to visualize (and perhaps code and score). So why is the proposed/
more complex method better than this? If it's not ALOT better, is
there room in the estimation of the RC for perhaps a refinement to the
current proposal or is that not to be entertained?

Just curious....

-Mark
On Jan
On Jan 9, 7:36*pm, wrote:
On Jan 9, 5:56 pm, wrote:



The reason for the start-anywhere refinement did not come from a
desire to stop the fun of blasting out the top from the back half a
Parowan.

We were worried about the following. Imagine a more typical contest in
which you can't get that much about start top, and in particular with
cloudbase 500'-1000' above start top. Think especially about a pretty
strong downwind component on the first leg.

In this situation, it will be very tempting to start out the top near
the back, and try to float around near MSH bumping the start gaggles.
This will give you an extra 10 miles of downwind flying in well-marked
lift. If you drop down into the cylinder for more than 2 minutes, oh
well, you can just take your next exit as start, or go back and try
again. Trying it is a free option. This flying is done in a very
dubious zone, close to the clouds, with pre-start gliders wandering
around everywhre. Safety minded pilots would try to avoid it, but if
everyone else starts doing it, it will be very tempting.

Yes, it will still be tempting to do this starting in the middle of
the cylinder, but we hope it will be less of a problem in practice
with only 5 miles to go. (And unsafe flying penalties still there as a
deterrent)

As for the skulduggery and evil intentions, come on guys, you know us
better than that. We're just trying to get simple, safe, workable,
fair and fun rules here. Are we thinking about problems that haven't
happened yet? You bet! The job of the rules committe is to wake up at
2 in the morning with one more way that things can go wrong and fix it
ahead of time. This scenario hasn't been a problem in the past, but if
we have a whole season of national contests where some smarty figures
out this is the hot strategy, that's a disaster. We don't and should
not wait for problems to develop, especially safety problems, do do
something about them!

Yes, the options to start out the top are a bit less generous. They're
a lot better than the old rules. This whole business is getting to be
a mess, and there is some sentiment on the rules committee to drop
start anywhere and go back to the old rules.

I think we should go with what we have for a year -- last valid start
and front half refinement, though this is a decision ultimately for
our Chair an the SSA board. If you really miss the back half of the
top of the cylinder we can revisit that after a year. If we see people
skimming dangerously over the top of the start cylinder we may have to
restrict it more or differently.

John Cochrane
BB

* * *Here comes hat duracell bunny beating on that drum....

* * If the rule is flawed, it is what it is. Any attempt to justify a
rule that is flawed, is false justification.
* * It has been now pointed out very clearly, that what you can not do
is start anywhere within the defined start cylinder area *and be able
to turn anywhere within the defined turn area. *This has nothing to do
with starting out the top.

* * *I would sincerely and with all due respect John, hate to see
anyone lost a regional or national event because of rule that now
clearly shows points can be lost when one turns in a defined area. No
one thinks anyone is evil. The rules committe members are all very
highly respected. Yet all of us have a sportsmanship duty, *that if we
see something that is wrong or think its not right, to speak on it.
This is sportsmanship. We do not want an unfair advantage over another
entrant due to a rule being written wrong or complex as you have
pointed out.

* * *The CD can easily set the max start height at 10,000 agl as its
only suggested to do otherwise. The start height is not what is
flawed. Starting out the top is not flawed. *The rules gives us a
defined turn area inwhich we can turn in, at any point we choose. If
we turn somewhere within the turn area and recieve a point loss, its
because of a flawed rule, then that area should be defined and shown
to all entrants where these areas are without special software
required.
* * * Showing examples of what might happen or hear say, *does not
give support to a rule, which gives a point lost without the entrant
even knowing about it. We have an agreement between us, the entrants,
and with the NAA, SSA, IGC and contest officals that the contest will
be fair and equal to all and held according to the rules. The rules
are to be fair and equal to all parties. How can anyone support this
rule knowing full well that it can cause a point loss?

* * * Even saying its only a few points is admisson the rule is
flawed.

* * * What we do have are the finest rules that we have ever had. Some
commiittee members have been working on these since 1992. I do believe
we have a commitment not only to us, but to the NAA, SSA and IGC to
make sure our rules will be sound, well thought out and flaw free. *I
wish to maintain integrity in our sport for all entrants and between
all said parties.

* * *What we should do is ever allow a rule, that has been shown to be
flawed, even into our sport. *Also, a rule that is flawed, should
never be proposed.

* * *Now, that duracell bunny, has beaten this drum to
shreads..........711.