2014 US Modern and US Club Class Nationals - Assigned Task called today! FANTASTIC!

[Sean Fidler]

http://www.ssa.org/Contests?cid=2248&show=blog&id=3736&ContestName=Sports+Class+Nationals

I am really happy to see this! Its of course a very strong day down there (finally). I would be interested in hearing everybody's feedback as to how they liked the Assigned task today vs. the more typical Turn Area Tasks.

Maybe the CD even put a time limit on the start cylinder (say 15 minutes)!

Just kiddin ;-)

Sean

[lynn]

By Texas norms, it was a weak day for half the task with massive gaggles along the first leg (68+/- miles). The glut of sailplanes at each thermal seemed somewhat hazardous. Lift in the range of 300fpm and max heights around 5000 to 6000MSL with ground elevations of 700 to 1300ft. The last 60 to 70 miles lacked any clouds and lower max gains as one approached the finish. Wishing for a repeat of 2011 summer when the norm was 600 to 1200fpm and cloud bases of 8000 to 12000msl.

[Bill D]

Apparently Kathy Fosha was able to make the most of it. Congratulation to her for a first place day.

[Tony]

It was a fun and challenging day. Just what you should expect I suppose. Of course we were all hoping for blazing speeds and to be home in less than 4 hours. Clouds did not develop as well as we were hoping. There were a few sizable blue holes on course and the last leg home was blue for everyone. I started early and the gaggle didn't catch me until the second turn. Everyone got along well and flew nicely. We have a lot of very skilled pilots here. As far as I could tell in Club Class at least, everyone enjoyed the assigned task and had fun.

[Sean Fidler]

Glad that it worked out and that you had fun. Definitely a more challenging kind of task! Congrats to everyone for making it around.

[Tony]

On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:32:44 PM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Glad that it worked out and that you had fun. Definitely a more challenging kind of task! Congrats to everyone for making it around.

Modern Class was not so lucky.3 landouts, 1 fired the motor, and 1 didn't attempt the task. Still not too bad though.

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 12:32:44 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Glad that it worked out and that you had fun. Definitely a more challenging kind of task! Congrats to everyone for making it around.
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 11:35:35 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 8:17:18 PM UTC-5, Bill D wrote:
>

> > How is flying around with the gaggle all day in the blue more challenging?
UH

[Sean Fidler]

Well, here is to Club Class for getting around their 200 mile assigned task! Great job pilots and tasking commitee! I am sure both classes enjoyed challenge. It looks like it mixed up the standings a little too.

Good luck to both classes on the final day! I hope you get the opportunity to fly another assigned task today. I feel as if 2 of 7 total contest days with assigned tasks would be ok. 1 of 7 does not feel like enough assigned tasking for a Nationals. I would think ½ assigned tasks in the pure class Nationals would be a good target. For club/modern perhaps ⅓ is the right mix?

Thoughts?

Sean

[Sarah Arnold]

We had a fantastic time. The gaggle had spaced out nicely by the end of the first leg, and we had clouds for most of the day. It was a fun and challenging task. I hope we get another today.

Sarah Arnold

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 10:51:24 AM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Hank,
>
>
>
> Clearly you don't like the Assigned Task much based on your very exciting, enthusiastic description of it. ;-) Geeze.
>
>
>
> I see Assigned Tasking as the best thing that sailplane racing has to offer. In my experience, Assigned Tasks are far, far more fun and rewarding at all levels. They also are far too rare in the US. Ill stand on the podium for a second and explain...
>
>
>
> GAGGLES: In regards to gaggles, even if the group starts together (not AT ALL exclusive to assigned tasks by the way), eventually the gaggle will break up. Usually along the first leg. The great thing about Assigned Tasks is that pilots actually know how they are doing relative to other competitors. In an Assigned Task you are actually racing (almost!) and not just flying cross country together (sorta) and looking forward to seeing a score calculated by a scorers computer at the end of the day (often hours after you land) to tell you what it all meant while you were flying.
>
>
>
> Flying together during the Assigned Task is not a bad thing (for me). It's a great thing! It's called racing! Faster pilots will naturally get ahead, slower will fall behind and so on. The learning experience that happens during these rare (US) assigned tasks is extreme and highly valuable. I have learned 10x faster during Assigned Tasks vs. Area Tasks. I am also having 10x more fun! And again as the gaggle thins out along the task there is actual meaning to that pecking order that forms (see above). How fun!!!
>
>
>
> I would argue that gaggles are actually less common in Assigned Tasks at times. Unlike wide Turn Area Tasks, you can't "cut the corner" and catch up to the gaggle in every turn area like you can in Turn Area Task. This ability to "cut the corner" (or just randomly reconnecting) actually allows the gaggle to reform again and again in Turn Area Tasks. I actually saw this happen often at Perry this spring.
>
>
>
> In an Assigned Task trailers can only cut out a maximum of 2 miles to catch back up to the gaggle. Furthermore the leaders can (if they wish) simply turn early and eliminate the chance of trailers catching back up to them. They are only giving up 2 miles of distance. Note: I think we should remove the extra distance concept from Assigned Tasks for this reason. Assigned Tasks should be about pure speed around a simple set track, not about time or the ticky, tacky practice of adding extra distance or complex scoring programs. Assigned Tasks are simple races around a set track and should not be complex in any way.
>
>
>
> TURN AREA TASKS ARE MORE A GAME OF CHANCE (LUCK): In general, the whole reason Turn Area Tasks were created is to account for broad handicap ranges, broad skill ranges and difficult or unpredictable weather conditions. The Assigned Area task is, by definition, a compromise and a softening of the difficulty of the Assigned Task. In a Turn Area Task, there is no need to go to any particular point, if that spot doesn't look good to you, or there is not perfect cumulus cloud gleaming above it, you can just go somewhere else that looks better. That is fundamentally less challenging! Wide radius Turn Area Tasks provide pilots a tremendous amount of choice and the ability to constantly take chances on vastly different routes to entirely different turning points. In a 20 mile radius Turn Area for example, two pilots can easily be 30+ miles in terms of where they finally choose to turn. That is not a good thing when the conditions are good. Turn Area Tasks becomes a weather guessing game. Weather by definition is not an exact science (especially on a micro scale). Choosing a path in a Turn Area Task is often a crapshoot, lets be honest.
>
>
>
> THE IMPORTANCE OF TIME MANAGEMENT AND EXPENSIVE, COMPLEX GLIDE COMPUTERS IN TURN AREA TASKS: Unlike an Assigned Task which has no time limit, Turn Area Task (and MODIFIED Assigned Area Tasks) are almost completely focused on the pilots ability to effectively managing minimum time (or in the case of the Modified Assigned Area Task, to manage the complex process of adding on additional turnpoints AND time). Accurately estimating this time decision and returning to the finish efficiently during and Turn Area Task is extremely difficult to do well. A mistake in this KEY element can make or break your score for that day even if you flew perfectly up until that moment. Turn Area Task always result in pilots essentially "guessing" when to turn for home many miles away. That is unless you spend 5k on a top of the line glide computer! This time challenge with Turn Area Tasks has greatly increased the importance of expensive, complex glide computers (often the single most expensive item in the glider (around $5000 USD). The Glide Computer market has become a source of great competition among the various instrument manufacturers as they develop better features, brighter screens, better software, etc. It is a clear competitive advantage to own and master an expensive full featured Glide Computer when Turn Area Contests are almost exclusive! A reliance on complex glider computers is an obstacle to new pilots.
>
>
>
> I could go on and on...but I will stop here for now.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
>
>
> You make some very good points about why you like the AT better and enjoy it more.
I was asking why you think it makes for better competition.
I think there is a place for the AT and agree that task advisers should perhaps be more open minded.
Personally I don't think a high percentage of AT tasks should be mandated because it can force the task committee to call them on days when it is not the best task.
I don't dislike the AT. I simply don't believe that is as good a measure of a variety of soaring skills as other options.
I've flown a lot of tasks over the years that consisted of try to start late, catch the gaggle, stay with it because the percentages don't favor bravery, and final glide home with the group, most of whom never had to find a thermal or make a significant decision all day.
We would do well to have our task setters take the guidance in the rules addendum to heart and do a better job of calling a variety of tasks.
Wish I had been able to fly with those folks the last 2 weeks.

UH
>
>
>

[Bill D]

> > You make some very good points about why you like the AT better and enjoy it more.
>
> I was asking why you think it makes for better competition.
>
> I think there is a place for the AT and agree that task advisers should perhaps be more open minded.
>
> Personally I don't think a high percentage of AT tasks should be mandated because it can force the task committee to call them on days when it is not the best task.
>
> I don't dislike the AT. I simply don't believe that is as good a measure of a variety of soaring skills as other options.
>
> I've flown a lot of tasks over the years that consisted of try to start late, catch the gaggle, stay with it because the percentages don't favor bravery, and final glide home with the group, most of whom never had to find a thermal or make a significant decision all day.
>
> We would do well to have our task setters take the guidance in the rules addendum to heart and do a better job of calling a variety of tasks.
>
> Wish I had been able to fly with those folks the last 2 weeks.
>
>
>
> UH
>

I'm not a competition pilot but I see merits in both sides of this discussion.

Please allow me to pose a different, outsiders view. For the sake of increasing contest participation, the contest committee wants non-competition pilots watching a task on GlidePort to think, "Gee, this looks like fun, I think I'll give it a try." Instead of, as it often is, "I'm confused - I have no idea what those folks are doing".

While fixed time tasks may better test a pilot's ability, they come across to neophytes as difficult to understand. Competitor tactics and strategy are not at all clear and I've had no success trying to explain them to non-contest pilots.

On the other hand, an AST is simplicity itself - it's just a race. Everybody understands a race and they're fun to watch. While AST's have less value in testing pilot's ability, they may have greater value in enticing new people into trying competition.

I would further suggest that, at least in the case of "entry level" competition, leaching and gaggles may be a good thing for a bunch of rookies learning the game by watching more experienced pilots. With the advent of PowerFlarm, this seems less dangerous that it once was.

[Sean Fidler]

Hank I deleted my post to fix spelling errors. Below is the post fixed as best I could. Basically the same as you responded too. Thanks by the way!

I fully understand that in our reality (less pilots, not wanting to land out, etc) that TATs are here to stay. I'm just arguing for us to try harder and to do a bit more AT's at Nationals (and clean them up). Everybody wants to have fun and I get it. I know I am a little radical at times. But I think there is a case to consider stepping them up a little but more. I think it will help us all grow together a bit more as glider pilots!

Sincerely,

Sean

Hank,

Clearly you don't like the Assigned Task much based on your very exciting, enthusiastic description of it. ;-) Geeze.

I see Assigned Tasking as the best thing that sailplane racing has to offer. In my experience, Assigned Tasks are far, far more fun and rewarding at all levels. They also are far too rare in the US. I'll stand on the podium for a second and explain my reasoning...

GAGGLES: In regards to gaggles, even if the group starts together (not AT ALL exclusive to Assigned Tasks by the way), eventually the gaggle will break up. Usually along the first leg. The great thing about Assigned Tasks is that pilots actually know how they are doing relative to other competitors. In an Assigned Task you are actually racing your competitors. In a Turn Area Task you are basically flying cross country together (sorta?). In a Turn Area Task you have to wait to see your score hours after you land. This is all you have in a Turn Area to understand what it all meant while you were flying at different times and on vastly different lines that your "competitors."

Flying together during the Assigned Task is not a bad thing (for me at least). It's a great thing! I love it. It's called racing! Faster pilots will naturally pull ahead, slower will fall behind and so on. The learning experience that occurs during these rare (US) assigned tasks is extreme and highly valuable. I have learned 10x more about cross country glider flight during Assigned Tasks vs. Area Tasks. At the same time, I am having 10x more fun! Again as the gaggle thins out along the task there is actual meaning to that pecking order that forms (see above). If you catch up to someone a little, you have gained. How fun!!!

I would argue that gaggles may be less likely in Assigned Tasks that Assigned Area Tasks. Unlike wide Turn Area Tasks, trailing pilots cannot "cut the corner" and catch up to the gaggle in every turn area like you can in Turn Area Task. This ability to "cut the corner" actually allows the gaggles to reform again and again during Turn Area Tasks. I actually saw this happen often at Perry this spring.

In an Assigned Task trailers can only cut out a maximum of 2 miles to catch back up to the gaggle. Furthermore the leaders can (if they wish) simply turn early and eliminate the chance of trailers catching back up to them. They are only giving up 2 miles of distance.

Speaking of this, we should remove area concept from Assigned Tasks "Area's." Assigned Tasks should be about pure speed around a simple set track. AT's should not involve the ticky, tacky practice of deciding whether or not to add 2 miles of extra distance. That is a waste of time and defeats the purpose of a pure race. It also reintroduces the need for complex scoring programs and waiting around for hours to see your score. Assigned Tasks are desirable because they are simple, pure races around a set track. You only decision should be ensuring that you are inside the turn area. Assigned Tasks need not be complex in any way. In addition, gaggles would break up even more than they do naturally.

TURN AREA TASKS ARE MORE A GAME OF CHANCE (LUCK): In general, the whole reason Turn Area Tasks were introduced was to reduce landouts in classes with broad handicap ranges, broad skill ranges and when difficult or unpredictable weather conditions (chance of thunderstorms, etc) were present. The Turn Area task is, by definition, a compromise and a softening of the difficulty of the Assigned Task. For example, in a Turn Area Task, there is rarely any requirement for the pilot to achieve any particular point that may be less than perfect. TAT people will complain, "what if that Assigned Turn doesn't look good?" "What if the perfect cumulus cloud is not gleaming above the Assigned Turn?" They say, "I don't want to be forced to go somewhere I don't want to go..." Turn Area Tasks are fundamentally less challenging than having to fly to a particular point and solve the puzzle if the conditions are not ideal! Pilots who never fly Assigned Tasks never learn to handle these situations.

Wide radius Turn Area Tasks provide pilots a tremendous amount of choice and freedom. TAT competitors enjoy the ability to constantly take vastly different routes. In a 20 mile radius Turn Area for example, two pilots can easily be 30+ miles in terms of where they finally choose to turn. Both pilots might have been equally good at reading the clouds as they chose their path. But once they get there you are relying on your guess being better than theirs. That is not the high quality experience, especially when the conditions are good. Turn Area Tasks become a weather guessing game. Weather by definition is far from an exact science (especially on a micro scale). Choosing the best path in a Turn Area Task is often a guess and sometimes a crapshoot, let's be honest.

THE IMPORTANCE OF TIME MANAGEMENT AND EXPENSIVE, COMPLEX GLIDE COMPUTERS IN TURN AREA TASKS: Unlike an Assigned Task which has no time limit, Turn Area Task (and MODIFIED Assigned Area Tasks!) are almost completely focused on the pilots ability to effectively managing minimum time (or in the case of the Modified Assigned Area Task, to manage the complex process of adding on additional turn points AND manage time). Accurately estimating this "time decision" and returning to the finish efficiently during and Turn Area Task is extremely difficult thing to do consistently well and therefore a massive variable. A mistake in this KEY decision (and frankly the decision of where to turn in all the wide Turn Area's) can make or break your score for that day even if you flew perfectly up until that moment. Turn Area Task always result in pilots essentially "guessing" when to turn in each Turn Area. The last turn area and that all-important decision on when to turn back for home is usually many miles away. Most pilots therefore compromise and aim to finish 10-15 minutes over (a huge loss in average speed). That is unless you spend 5k on a top of the line glide computer!

This time estimation problem with Turn Area Tasks resulted in greatly increased reliance on expensive, complex glide computers (often the single most expensive item in the glider (around $5000 USD). The Glide Computer market has become a source of great competition among the various instrument manufacturers as they develop better features, brighter screens, better software, etc. It is a clear competitive advantage to own (and have the time to master) an expensive full featured Glide Computer when time based Turn Area Task contests are almost exclusive these days! A reliance on complex glider computers is an obstacle to new pilots becoming competitive.

[drguya...@gmail.com]

I could not agree more!
Racing should not be about computer skills.
Racing should not be about playing "what ifs" on the computer while flying.
It should be about making the best of what mother nature provides to fly a task.
Everyone flying the same task makes it all about flying skills.

[Andy K]

Sean, well written...

[anderson....@gmail.com]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 9:41:42 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Hank I deleted my post to fix spelling errors. Below is the post fixed as best I could. Basically the same as you responded too. Thanks by the way!
>
>
>
> I fully understand that in our reality (less pilots, not wanting to land out, etc) that TATs are here to stay. I'm just arguing for us to try harder and to do a bit more AT's at Nationals (and clean them up). Everybody wants to have fun and I get it. I know I am a little radical at times. But I think there is a case to consider stepping them up a little but more. I think it will help us all grow together a bit more as glider pilots!
>
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
>
>
> Sean

Sean and I have discussed this before.

I enjoy AT's (and long MAT's, for that MATter) because you are closer to your competitors for much of the course - and the broad deployment of Flarm enhances that sensation. Under most circumstances I find AT's test a very different set of skills that the pilot-option task formats. I left glider racing to raise a family right before GPS tasking was introduced and came back after it was established. I was amazed at the broader set of skills that were put to the test when the pilot was given more latitude to choose his/her own path to maximize the conditions.

I find AT's depend very much on the cat and mouse game of "use markers/lose leeches" or "start gate roulette". This can sometimes result in strategies that gain advantage by being willing to push lower and farther to get the big climb when other pilots chicken out. AAT's (or TAT's) depend much more on your ability to read the conditions and pick a path with the most energy. MAT's with lots of turn options have this in spades - I have kicked a$$ and gotten my a$$ kicked by outsmarting or being outsmarted by pilots who know how to figure out clouds, terrain, weather forecasts, how heating affects lift conditions 20 minutes from now when the Cirrus blows past, haze domes, the math of course deviations, the math of upwind/downwind/crosswind legs, the list goes on and on. Much less of that is available when the penalty for deviating from straight down the course line is as high as it is on an AT. I know I have a different view from many. For me soaring is a game of rich analytical and pattern-recognition tradeoffs and strategy rather than head-faking, risk management and guts, but I see the appeal of both. The sucker/leech (or "cat/mouse" if you prefer) game-theory tactical part of the sport - especially with Flarm on board - is intriguing and I regularly see it on display with the more prescribed tasks. To be good at the sport you need to hone your skills in both, but I know which part I find more stimulating and offering more possibility.

It's also true that each task type yields a different racing experience depending on terrain and conditions. Pure flatland soaring with no terrain or ground surface variation and no clouds makes the choices of an AAT or MAT less clear so you may as well prescribe the turns and use gliders and the lift indicators, there's less richness in being able to read the conditions - or gain some advantage from them. On the other hand, on a mountain day with cu and thunderstorms and convergence and ridges, it seems a bit of a pity not to let the pilots get creative in optimizing for the conditions. My most thrilling flights have always been where I got to figure out what was going on with conditions and make a play to make something big out of it.

I disagree that computers are expensive only because of managing finish time. With assigned tasks making a long dead glide out into a turn point with no lift around it and back to the lift is no less taxing for a computer to figure out then "when am I going to finish" - plus the value of being right on time is a bit overblown. I've made speed on the field by extending the flight by significant time/distance under the right conditions (oh, that's another thing I like that you don't get in AT's).

I know - I think too much.

:-)

9B

[drbda...@aol.com]

About the time they started to do away with assigned task is about the time I dropped out of competition soaring. Sure I tried a couple of contest with the newer task structure but it wasn't really a race IMHO, more like a social gathering and data analysis. I found yacht racing more gratifying since everyone was on the same race course, dealing with essentially the same weather. Sure you'll have your leeches and gaggles with assigned task but the purpose of a national contest is to select a team for the worlds. In the old days, the top 10(category 1 pilots)would vote for who they thought would best represent the US and the leeches would never make the team anyway.

Barry

[uncl...@ix.netcom.com]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 2:36:55 PM UTC-4, drbda...@aol.com wrote:
> About the time they started to do away with assigned task is about the time I dropped out of competition soaring. Sure I tried a couple of contest with the newer task structure but it wasn't really a race IMHO, more like a social gathering and data analysis. I found yacht racing more gratifying since everyone was on the same race course, dealing with essentially the same weather. Sure you'll have your leeches and gaggles with assigned task but the purpose of a national contest is to select a team for the worlds. In the old days, the top 10(category 1 pilots)would vote for who they thought would best represent the US and the leeches would never make the team anyway.
>

> Sounds like you were competing a good while ago.
Maybe you remember the nationals won by a pilot that never had to find a thermal for the whole contest.
The ultimate execution of tactical AT flying.
UH
>

[Tom Kelley #711]

No 9B, you don't think to much. Flarm, with viewers, which clearly show location and climb rate of others, are what some are pounding their chest over BUT saying so in a different language. AT's and long MAT's now favor this new high tech junkie who's trying to leech/gain an unfair advantage over the other entrants who don't/choose not to display this new electronic knowledge.

I have written evidence of how one entrant actually states he use's Flarm as a tactical advantage over his fellow competitors in choosing his race strategy on selected days.

The high cost of required computers is a needless rant, IMHO. Many, including myself, know and have been using Ipaq's, Oudies/V2's with software(some free) which is won with. The old folks who have won the Regionals/Nationals again this year...yes...hint....LOOK OUTSIDE AT THE CONDITIONS THEY ARE IN AND ARE GOING TO. They know the areas they race in as they have been racing their for many years! They continue to make the BEST choices! They race whats called and if they feel differently they address their advisors. Advisors do listen if you talk to them!

Yes, no gold stars are awarded for being on time with a TAT or MAT.

Here's hoping that the NAA and SSA will be requiring a new competition mode(not sealth) on Flarm which will stop all these high tech junkies using Flarm viewers at FAI,NAA,& SSA sanctioned contests.

All the contest's I have been to, the CD's, along with their advisors, are doing their best, to give the entrants a daily task which is RIGHT for the conditions THEY are seeing for that day. They consider ALL task's, but the conditions for that day warrants the use of the task they call to test ALL the entrants skills. To second guess what they are doing, well, anyone can do that, but its just not sane, IMHO.

This thought of contests being "fun" and lets "go dance in the tulips" is what I question, IMHO. Sure, social dinners are good, BUT why would any want to spend $2500 plus bucks to go play in the flowers and dance with "boy george" for god sake when they are at a.......... "RACE".

Best, #711.

[Dan Stroschine]

I am also not a competition pilot, I'm barely even a pilot, so maybe this either a dumb idea or already available but is there a compromise of sorts. Can a CD create a course that consists of some assigned tasks, in a specific order AND a 'free period' of sorts that could the turn area types?

[Steve Leonard]

On Thursday, July 24, 2014 4:34:46 PM UTC-5, Dan Stroschine wrote:
> I am also not a competition pilot, I'm barely even a pilot, so maybe this either a dumb idea or already available but is there a compromise of sorts. Can a CD create a course that consists of some assigned tasks, in a specific order AND a 'free period' of sorts that could the turn area types?

Idea is already available, Dan. In the US, it is called the "Modified Assigned Task", or MAT. It can be used with up to 11 turn points, some or all can be defined by the task setter. If not all 11 are defiend by the task setter, it is up to the individual pilot to decide what additional turnpoints he will add. He does have to get within one mile of all turns, so it is not the larger areas for turning around available with the Turn Area Task (TAT), but if I pilot selects his direction of flight wisely, he can have multiple turnpoints available for his choice of when to turn around and go back through where he thought conditions were good.

Generally, the task is set to have a portion of it defined, then allow the racers to "pick their own points" for the rest of the task. I have also flown tasks where the task setter defined a course where you would be on course all day and then some if you tried to complete the entire task, and in that case, you got to chose when you wanted to end the task and come home. And you still got credit for completing a speed task. Interesting, but can be a controversial task to call in this manner.

The key thing is that on a Modified Assigned Task, the turn areas are limited to one mile radius, while on a Turn Area Task, the turn radius can be up to, I believe, 30 miles.

Steve Leonard

[anderson....@gmail.com]

Yes.

It's available today and is called the Modified Assigned Task. The ratio of assigned to free flying is infinitely variable. The "no turn" form of the task gets used quite often when weather is very uncertain and is quite like OLC flying. Some feel contests should have only the no assigned turn form of task and some feel the opposite - that all turnpoints should be narrowly prescribed.

Depends what you think you're good at.

9B

[noel.wade]

*SIGH*

I'm going to have to finish the half-written article I've had for SOARING magazine for a long time.

I understand a lot of you _think_ the AT/AST is a better "race" - but its way way way more complicated than that. Here are a couple of highlights:

1) You're racing not in 3 dimensions, but in _4_ dimensions; you have to deal with the passage of time. Thermals are of limited duration so you have small inscrutable windows of time (which cannot be accurately forecasted 1-2 hours in advance when you go through the start-gate) whereupon thermals will be lined up with a direct course to your 1-mile turnpoint. Anyone who happens to hit those thermals at that moment gets a BIG advantage over anyone who has to deviate more than 10-20 degrees off-course to find a thermal in the same area when they fly through (possibly just a few minutes later).

By contrast, a well-called** TAT with limited cylinder sizes allows for thermal variations over the course of the day and doesn't penalize pilots nearly as harshly if they come through an area and just happen to time it so that they have to make a slightly larger deviation in course than "the other guy". The TAT judges the pilot more-closely on the speed he/she achieved over the ground they actually flew, and with the conditions they actually flew through at the time.

Additionally a TAT can provide a safety-margin around dangerous terrain, areas known for OD, or turnpoints that otherwise couldn't ever be used due to some local condition or effect. The AT/AST provides zero flexibility for any of these situations.

2) You really screw people with lower L/D if there isn't regularly-spaced lift. Blue-holes or large gaps between thermal/ridge/wave areas have a disproportionate effect on lower L/D ships in an AT/AST. That's because they give the pilot only two choices - both unappealing: either a probable landout or a long deviation around the area (for which they pay a huge penalty in an AT/AST). With a TAT or MAT, the pilot can fly a different course-line - deviating around the problem area - and still get credit for much of that distance. They are rewarded for making a good and safe decision, and are judged more-closely on the speed they actually fly through the air.

There are many more items I could raise; but fundamentally you need to understand what skills the AT/AST is measuring and what skills the TAT measures. Each have their drawbacks and caveats, and which one you think is "better" should be based on what they really judge, not what you _think_ they do or which one makes you feel nostalgic, or warm & fuzzy, or speedy.

--Noel

**NOTE: There are a lot of poorly called TATs, which I think give people the impression that the task format itself is bad. News-flash: AT/ASTs can be mis-called, too! A TAT should provide cylinder sizes that are just large enough to either:
1) Accommodate the mix of gliders in a handicapped class with a wide variance in L/D (i.e. 10-15 mile cylinders), or
2) Accommodate small-scale fluctuations in thermal distribution throughout the day (i.e. 5-10 mile cylinders).
I completely agree that TATs with 20-30 mile cylinders are indicative of poor task-calling and perhaps a CD who wants "fun" more than he/she wants a "race". But if that's the case, get upset at the CD and _not_ the task format!

RANT: Soaring Contests are not like yacht racing. STOP WITH THAT COMPARISON. Yacht racing has what we call "Grand Prix" starts. Yacht racing also has wind that tends to blow across a reasonable part of the course at the same time. Thermals are much smaller in size and duration. In sailing, its more important to jockey for position to cover your opponent and put them at a positional disadvantage so they get less wind; you cannot consistently position yourself to lessen the effect of thermals on your opponents... short of crowding them out of the thermal cores via dangerous maneuvering that will get you banned from contests. Oh, and when two yachts jockeying for position bump, it doesn't usually kill people or destroy the vessels and threaten folks on the ground (like a midair does). They may have some passing similarities; but they are very different animals: one deals with horizontal wind and a 2-dimensional water-surface, while the other deals with horizontal _and_ convective air currents and a 3-dimensional field.

[Sean Fidler]

Noel,

How about this for an idea? Let's write a point-counterpoint article together on AT/TAT. It would be fun article to write and better to read and hear the feedback on.

For the record, my goal is not to "kill" the TAT. Again, I get it. The TAT is a worthwhile tool for handicap events or when the weather is risky. That said, I believe that the TAT is used WAY TOO MUCH and for the wrong reasons. In fact it is almost the only task used in the US! We are only testing "that" skill. A big reason we struggle at the world championships as a country (US) for sure.

Most importantly, I believe that the TAT is a very complex, intimidating task type for beginner contest pilots. This is something I believe that many here don't fully understand, and that concerns me. Keep in mind I have only been sailplane racing for a few years now, so I have a different perspective. 3 years ago I flew my first contest (all TATs)! In addition to its strategic and functional complexity, I also strongly believe that the TAT introduces high degree of luck into the game.

My goal is to revitalize the use of PURE AT TASK and therefore increase the percentage of PURE AT TASKS flown in US contests. By PURE I mean no "ticky tacky" adding distance in the turns (US rules). More on that later...

If you run a statistical analysis of how many ATs vs TAT (and MAT) were flown in the US in 2013, I think we would all be shocked. Do we have this data out there? If not, I'm going to work on building this data point tonight on the beach with a beer! I will post it here as soon as I'm done.

Personally, I would like to see "roughly" 33% ATs at regionals and 50% ATs at nationals. That's my goal. Well to be perfectly honest, I would like to see 50-70% at regionals and 70-100% at nationals. This is because (as you now know) I believe that ATs are better measures of pilot skill. But, I know that will never happen in the US anytime soon so I will just be happy with any marginal improvement ;-).

Think about this for a moment. Should our sport be known as "sailplane racing" or as "sailplane time/distance calculator & weather guessing competition?" Talk about lining up those spectators! ;-). We need, at least, more balance in our tasking.

In regards to time/4th dimension, I fully agree with you Noel. That is probably why the US RC is working on introducing/experimenting with limited start (time) windows (say 30 minutes MAX). If we keep the starting rules "as is" we will be assured of continuing the VERY silly practice of allowing competitors to start hours apart (ensuring different conditions) and still calling it a fair race (no luck here)! My hope is that Grand Prix "like" starts will become the "norm" soon (say a 10 minute "window").

FYI: The reason that I don't like MATs that much either is that MATs are also quite complex (perhaps more complex that TATs when additional turns are required to fill in the allotted "time limit"). Again this task is a huge intimidation to new contest pilots or any pilot not familiar (knows them by heart) with the local turn points! Bring out those maps! Get those heads down in the cockpit pecking away on that fancy computer, guesstimating various time/distance/turn point/average speed scenarios... Not all that safe really and the task itself makes fancy computers pretty darn useful to have.

DISCLAIMER: I wrote my posts yesterday from an iPhone in a cab. I'm writing this one from the "gaggle" about to board a plane. I'm sure these are both pretty poor. I'll write some more this weekend from a laptop when I get a few minutes so sit down and focus.

Finally, I enjoy the debate here. It's a lot of fun and I think very good points are being made from many perspectives! Keep it coming. Your (no contest experience, little contest experience, lots of contest experience, spectator, etc) is valuable to this discussion! I think this a very healthy and worthwhile debate. Nobody is "wrong." Nobody is "right." Both tasks are useful. The question is only what is the right "mix!"

Sincerely,

Sean

[Dan Stroschine]

Thanks Steve. Just another example as to how much there still is the learn.

[Steve Leonard]

On Friday, July 25, 2014 2:14:09 PM UTC-5, Dan Stroschine wrote:
> Thanks Steve. Just another example as to how much there still is the learn.

And there is still plenty for those of us to do these tasks to learn! The basics are simple. The strategy is some percentage of it. The real big part is the overall flying skill.

Steve

[noel.wade]

On Friday, July 25, 2014 7:11:33 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Noel,
>
>
>
> How about this for an idea? Let's write a point-counterpoint article together on AT/TAT. It would be fun article to write and better to read and hear the feedback on.

Sean - If you want to run a pro-AT article, I won't stop you. But I don't a point/counterpoint article because that implies either one of us is "wrong" or that one of the task types is "wrong". And neither is the point I'm trying to make.

I want to foster understanding - way too many glider pilots don't understand what the glider contest tasks are measuring; and that leads them to false conclusions on how they should fly tasks, what tasks are "bad", and what tasks they should call when they're running a contest.

--Noel

[Steve Leonard]

On Friday, July 25, 2014 9:11:33 AM UTC-5, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Noel, How about this for an idea? Let's write a point-counterpoint article together on AT/TAT.

If you two did a point-counterpoint article, which one of you would be Dan and which one of you would be Jane? (Thinking back to the good old days of Saturday Night Live, for those who don't get the reference)

:-)

Steve

[Sean Fidler]

I strongly, strongly disagree that TAT's are a "better" measure of glider racing pilot skill vs. simple, pure AT's. In fact, I could not disagree more. That said Noel, you do appear to have it almost entirely "your way" now (TAT lovers rejoice) as only 3% of US tasks in 2013 were pure, Assigned Tasks. That's right. 3 percent.

We should start a new thread to discuss "what glider contest tasks are measuring!" That would be a great one. Who decided that TAT's (or OLC for that matter) is a better measure of pilot skill? Is there a book or article that I can read? When was this decision made? Are you claiming that this is a point of fact?

I think "what glider contest tasks are measuring" is highly, HIGHLY debatable topic.

Again, whoever is controlling/influencing US tasking is clearly doing a great job for those who like TAT's and MAT's vs. pure, simple and clean ATs. In fact, only 3% of tasks in the US in 2013 were pure Assigned Tasks. Many (perhaps MOST!) of the MAT's where one turn. Several (in a the Sports Class Nationals at Mifflin) were actually ZERO TURN. I find this almost disgraceful and very sad. Think about the advantage local pilots have over guests, at Mifflin, in a zero turn MAT!

Perhaps I just have an odd perspective on things. I have only been racing gliders for a few years now. Personally, I see the TAT and MAT (especially a 1 or zero turn MAT) as a waste of a good flying day (97% of all US tasks) in many cases. A TAT/MAT is a waste of a chance to truly and objectively measure a sailplane pilots racing skill in a simple (no timer or fancy computer required), RACE!

In fact, very rarely (perhaps never) have I flown a TAT in which I could not have easily completed an AT. Why are CDs and pilots so afraid of calling ATs? The questionable conditions that "justify" calling a TAT are rarely so specific that a wide turn area would mean a successful task and a 1 mile assigned area would mean a land out. Furthermore it is extremely rare that the task committee is able to call a TAT accurately enough to avoid unflyable condition precisely enough to make a difference. This viewpoint that AT's result in more land outs has become a highly overused theme (97%) in my opinion. How would we know anymore? We call so few of them now.

Regardless, the US has lost pure Assigned Tasking almost entirely now (3%, and likely falling). It seems that the campaign to reduce AT's in favor of TATs and MAT's has been too successful. In my opinion, this has all come at far too high a price on US sailplane racing quality. As someone stated earlier in this thread, TAT's test a different skill that ATs. At 97%, TAT appears to be the only skill we really "test!"

I look forward to a continued debate on your statement that "glider pilots don't understand what the glider contest tasks are measuring..." I think you have opened the right can of worms in that statement. Can you please expand on your understanding of who, what, where, why and how "what glider contest tasks are measuring" originated and was validated?

Oh and Steve, I'll be Jane for sure! ---> https://screen.yahoo.com/point-counterpoint-lee-marvin-michelle-000000157.html

Sincerely,

Sean

[noel.wade]

On Tuesday, July 29, 2014 9:02:42 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> I strongly, strongly disagree that TAT's are a "better" measure of glider racing pilot skill vs. simple, pure AT's. In fact, I could not disagree more.

Sean - since your comments seem to be aimed at me, please re-read my post. Nowhere do I claim that TATs are "better". I am staying that AT's are *not* necessarily better than TATs.

I am also saying that TATs can (and should) be called differently than what we often see. I think a lot of your (and other pilots') angst towards TATs can be laid squarely at the feet of CDs who call 3-turn TATs with 20+ mile cylinders. I fully agree that these tasks quickly lose their appeal after you've been to one or two contests.

But those same CDs can just as easily call crappy ATs (see Kirk's comment about a mass landout on an AT)!

In short: if you want better tasks, talk to your CDs. Don't just blame the type of task.

--Noel
P.S. I would also like to point out that several contest pilots with a hell of a lot more experience than you or I have no problems with TATs.

[Sean Fidler]

Noel, Could you please explain more about what you mean by this (post earlier today)...

"way too many glider pilots don't understand what the glider contest tasks are measuring; and that leads them to false conclusions on how they should fly tasks, what tasks are "bad", and what tasks they should call when they're running a contest."

What are glider contest tasks measuring? Im not really sure I understand what you're saying here. Its a very important statement that you made.

Thanks,

Sean

[Mike I Green]

Hi Guys,

My 2 cents.

Regionals prepare for Nationals, Nationals prepare for internationals.

MG

--
Mike I Green

[Sean Fidler]

Noel,

Could you please explain more about what you mean by this (post a couple days ago)...

"way too many glider pilots don't understand what the glider contest tasks are measuring; and that leads them to false conclusions on how they should fly tasks, what tasks are "bad", and what tasks they should call when they're running a contest."

[Sean Fidler]

Noel? Where did you go? We are not quite done here yet...

You made a very direct statement to me (in an earlier post in this thread) about how "glider pilots do not understand what contest tasks are measuring" which needs to be discussed further IMO. Full statement in quotes below...

This is a very strong statement on your part! It appears that you are now avoiding my polite requests for you to explain exactly what you meant by that statement. Your shyness from responding to me is surprising as you appeared (at that time) to strongly believe that your opinion on "what glider contest tasks are supposed to be measuring" was correct. The problem is that you never told us the answer!

You said........"WAY TO MANY glider pilots DON'T UNDERSTAND what the glider CONTEST TASKS ARE MEASURING; and that leads them to false conclusions on how they should fly tasks, what tasks are "bad", and what tasks they should call when they're running a contest."

So, again, what it the answer?

Has this (funny as we don't know the answer yet) been written into law? On whose authority? FAI? SSA? It's a good and important question that I am asking you here! Even if it is just your personal opinion, I still really want to hear the answer. Let's discuss your statement further and make sure that I understand you.

Perhaps others have a different idea...?

Thanks,

Sean

[noel.wade]

On Saturday, August 2, 2014 6:07:00 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Noel? Where did you go? We are not quite done here yet...
>

I am busy with special projects at work, with volunteering for my glider club (the previous treasurer suffered a stroke and I have had to step into the role unexpectedly), and right this moment I'm at a family reunion.

I am sorry that my responses are not fitting in with your desired time-frame; but real life is more important to me right now.

I will happily try to explain these points in the article I write for SOARING magazine.

--Noel

[Sean Fidler]

Noel,

Earlier in this thread you wrote the following statement...

"I want to foster understanding - way too many glider pilots don't understand what the glider contest tasks are measuring; and that leads them to false conclusions on how they should fly tasks, what tasks are "bad", and what tasks they should call when they're running a contest. " -Noel Wade (July 29, 2014)

Noel, again:
1) what are contest tasks supposed to measure?
2) What are they NOT supposed to measure?
3) What do "most pilots not understand?"
4) What false conclusions do pilots reach about how they should fly tasks?
Finally,
5) "who decided these things for us?"

PLEASE, PPPPLLLLEEEEAAASSSSEEEEEE!!!!!!!! answer my questions. It was your statement.

We are all busy. :-) Work, sleep, family, flying clubs, fun projects, etc. That said, responding to my simple questions would only take a few seconds. No more time than your response here today which did everything except address my polite and relivant question about your strong statement about tasking. I'm starting to think you might be avoiding a response to my questions. Why would you not want to explain this statement?

Again, I want to understand what you meant by your statement. I am fully aware that I may disagree and that you have a different viewpoint. That is not my point. I simply want to hear the thought process behind your statement, its origins and learn on who or whats "authority" it comes.

Is this authority the SSA? If so, who exactly? Is it the FAI? If so, who? Other? Where is the document or rule or memo explaining what we pilots need to understand about tasks and what they are intended to measure? Can you please forward us all a copy of that memo. I missed it.

Thanks,

Sean

[Sean Fidler]

Noel?

It's been weeks now with absolutely no response from you about your statement "pilots don't understand what tasking is supposed to measure" etc.

Again....please explain your statement.

Thank You.

Sean

[Bruce Hoult]

On 2014-08-06 13:08:24 +0000, Sean Fidler said:

> Noel?
>
> It's been weeks now with absolutely no response from you about your
> statement "pilots don't understand what tasking is supposed to measure"
> etc.

I expect what is measured is an ability to read, understand, and
optimise for the rules currently in force...

[Sean Fidler]

Thanks Bruce. Noel? Waiting patiently for your response. Sean

[SteveB_Z5]

On Wednesday, August 6, 2014 11:38:06 AM UTC-7, Sean Fidler wrote:
> Thanks Bruce. Noel? Waiting patiently for your response. Sean

Maybe if you ask him 50 or 100 more times he will answer. I for one am looking forward to seeing all those posts.

[noel.wade]

Sean -

Being pushy, impatient, and having no regard for other people's priorities or time does not encourage me or anyone else to indulge you.

It has been neither weeks nor has my situation changed. I'm only posting here now (with 5 minutes to spare at 2am in bed on my phone trying to get some sleep) so that you know I've seen your requests.

I'll write a thoughtful, complete, considered response as soon as I can.

NOT for you and your rudeness; but because other pilots deserve the information.

--Noel

[Sean Fidler]

Noel,

I can't imagine what was rude. I have politely been asking you to explain your statement for the benefit of all interested in the topic of Pure Assigned Tasking. I think you might be more worried about this than you need to be.

I am truly interested in your response. I think it will be very enjoyable to read.

As we have both mentioned before, there is probably no clear right or wrong answer here. Much of this discussion is about subjective opinion. I am interested in the objective side of the discussion and wish to discuss the mechanics (and the many false impressions I believe exist) about the variability in decision making process between the two task types in terms of 1) requirements to time your finish accurately and the impact of a mistake 2) variability in time/weather and terrain (chance/skill/luck) and impact of a "mistake" 3) options in track (wide track variance still occurs on assigned tasks, plenty of choices and challenges).

Keep in mind that AT's are mainly called on the good weather days. I am not arguing for them on poor or highly variable days.

Sean

[Papa3]

I know I've posted this before, but what the heck... All of the focus on the task types, nuances of rules etc. only matters to a very small population; typically, those who are already serious about the sport and who get a kick out debating how many angels fit on the head of a pin (this population exists in sailboat racing, autocross, etc. so it's not unique to soaring). Now, that's not just my opinion - it's backed by a survey I conducted last year among what I think most people would agree are prospective racing pilots. Here's the summary that I provided to the Competition Committee.

The bottom line: the single biggest inhibitor for the average potential racing pilot (owner or co-owner of a single-place glider) as expressed by those owners is... THE TIME COMMITMENT REQUIRED TO TRAVEL TO AND PARTICIPATE IN A FULL WEEK (OR MORE) OF A SANCTIONED GLIDER CONTEST. The world has changed, and not many 30 somethings or 40 somethings with a family are able to or willing to use up a full week or more of precious vacation to potentially sit in the rain for several days at some out-of-the-way garden spot like Hobbs. There are a very small number of us who are so super-committed (and have very forgiving spouses) that we are willing to put everything aside for this model.

So, I think that folks like the GTA crowd and others are on to something. Maybe we need to recognize that smaller, more local gatherings are the future, and the traditional regionals or nationals could be replaced with a smaller number of super-regionals in place of true nationals. At least let's consider something different than the current model.

Here's the summary of the data. I'll try to post the spreadsheet and PDF on Dropbox later. Again, the following is based on answers given by other pilots - not my opinion. Something to consider.

*************************************

To the SSA Competition Committee (November 2013):
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 picture:

- 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 participated 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 against 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 participation. 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!

P3

[John Cochrane]

Sailboats have wednesday regattas. I'm not sure why we don't do weekend races. We could make them fully sanctioned, run by SSA rules; call them "local" (i.e. less than "regional.") They could be just one day even. Who cares. The key -- run them exactly the same way we run regular SSA races, post the results on the website, etc. We've talked about it at RC, the question is anyone interested in upping the level of the many local informal meets this way.
John Cochrane

[Sarah Arnold]

Every SSA sanctioned contest requires the organizer purchase insurance to cover that specific event. The cost of that was $525 last year. This plus sanction fees makes the local fully sanctioned small weekend contest cost prohibitive.

Sarah Arnold

[anderson....@gmail.com]

On Friday, August 8, 2014 8:28:50 PM UTC-7, Sarah Arnold wrote:
> Every SSA sanctioned contest requires the organizer purchase insurance to cover that specific event. The cost of that was $525 last year. This plus sanction fees makes the local fully sanctioned small weekend contest cost prohibitive.
>
> Sarah Arnold

Lots of soaring organizations of one kind or another do contests of one kind or another today, so some form of informal racing already happens today. Most are weekend affairs and many contest series run the entire summer. We should look into what a cut-down approach to less-than-regional contests might look like - if it's different from what already happens today.

There are some early discussion ongoing about how to make racing more time-efficient and less travel-intensive.

(written from my motel room in Nephi, UT - ~800 miles from home)