A few points:
Despite popular belief, team flying is disallowed or doesn't happen in most
European national competitions.
I've heard of multiple start points being tried in some places (WGC2010?)
but it hasn't stuck. It seems it only takes one day where pilots on one set
of start points are disadvantaged and everyone is up in arms and wants
start lines back - like after the nationals at Tocumwal with essentially
unsoarable weather covering 2/3rds of the start points.
I'm not convinced that multiple start points are safer than start lines -
with multiple start points I found myself thermalling with vastly different
span/wing loading gliders prestart, whereaa with distinctly separate start
lines such as those set at Kingaroy and Waikerie it'd be with comparable
gliders with similar circling speeds and diameters - if at all, on a 10km
start line there were usually multiple potentially optimal locations. If we
want to reduce gaggling we could even increase the line length - some
european comps fly with 20k.
I agree that gaggles are a high risk sitdayson but I remain unconvinced
that the formation is any less frequent with start points than start lines
- I remember the balls of glass forming on the blue days just as readily at
Benalla (last nationals with multiple points) as Waikerie/Kingaroy. There'd
be an enormous prestart gaggle, everyone would leave on diverging headings
for their start points then reconvene in the first thermal on track. It was
essentially the same as we have now but with a randomly selected group of
pilots being forced to start a bit lower than everyone else each day. I
welcome comments from those who've flown many more competitions than I with
both start systems.
The reality of the situation is that in weak and inconsistent conditions,
it's much slower/riskier to fly alone than with a gaggle and unless you
find a way to change the incentives that drive this, on the low, weak, blue
days there will be gaggling. All of the ways that I can think of (everybody
has a different task, everybody has a different start time) have a
substantial impact on fairness such that the day would better be cancelled.
On 13 Feb 2014 22:11, "Gary Stevenson" <gstev...@bigpond.com> wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> Harry has given us some good information here, which should be of special
> interest to newer competition pilots.
>
>
>
> I am somewhat at loss as to why Harry made comment in his last
> paragraph on team flying. Team flying is OUT in Australian National
> Competitions, and Ross McLean in a very recent post on this site explained
> exactly why.
>
>
>
> Harry gave a brief comment on Start Line (as currently used), as opposed
> to Start Circle, and as I see it, voted for the start circle. Perhaps Harry
> might like add some extra comment here?
>
>
>
> From my now EXTENSIVE experience of using a start line, I can say that
> the reality is that it would *seem* that in *a majority* of circumstances
> the actual start method does not really matter that much. However note my
> use of the words "SEEM" & "MAJORITY". As Harry pointed out, there are
> exceptions, and there is not the slightest doubt, that safety is
> compromised, in these exceptions.
>
>
>
> The Europeans love start lines ( despite all its potential hazards),
> because European pilots mostly team fly, and using a start line makes the
> start easier for a team.
>
>
>
> It is my understanding that Australia pioneered the use of allocated Start
> Circles. In Harry's paragraph 6, he talks about Start Point Circle
> layout geometry. The competition guide lines unambiguously set all this
> out: Very safe, and very fair. {I use "fair" as some pilots seem to think
> (argue), that having a choice of ONLY three start points is very
> inhibiting, and very unfair.] My comment - GET REAL!
>
>
>
> Basically THERE ARE MINIMAL HAZZARDS associated with start circles. If you
> don't quite "get it' yet*, I STRONGLY advocate that in Australia we
> exclusively use start circles*. They tend to inhibit a team flying
> approach, and they tend to inhabit a start gaggle, which is of course why
> the Europeans have not adopted the idea.
>
>
>
> Gary Stevenson
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net [mailto:
> aus-soaring-boun...@lists.internode.on.net] *On Behalf Of *Harry
> *Sent:* Thursday, 13 February 2014 3:39 PM
> *To:* Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] The nationals: a proposal
>
>
>
> Hi All,
>
>
>
> These notes may be of interest,
>
>
>
> Having a background of flying competitions for over 20years, being
> coordinator of the National Pilots Safety Committee and being involved in a
> midair in which I was hit from behind by a following glider and only just
> opening my parachute in time, maybe these comments may have some value.
>
>
>
> Over the period 1988 to 1999, national multiclass competitions mid air
> collisions resulted in 2 fatal mid airs, several pilots just opening their
> parachutes just in time, 5 gliders destroyed, as well as other mid airs
> where the damage did not result in loss of control. A number of pilots gave
> up flying competitions. One in ten of the pilots who flew National
> multiclass competitions during that period was involved in a mid air
> collision. The number of competitors during that period substantially
> reduced.
>
>
>
> By way of comparison the very popular national club class competitions
> which used an optional turn point tasking system, did not, to my memory,
> have a single mid air accident. The tasking system used resulted in very
> little gaggling.
>
>
>
> The National Pilots Safety Committee was formed to research these
> accidents and to suggest ways of preventing them. Changes made, Largely as
> a result of the Committees efforts included. Assigned start points to
> reduce gaggles, mandatory frequencies, mandatory safety briefings including
> providing extensive notes to pilots and Assigned Area Tasks particularly
> for use on difficult days. Suggestions for task setters included avoiding
> out and return situations, Having an included angle of no less than 30
> degrees between legs and setting tasks which avoided all classes coming
> home together at about the same time over a long leg.
>
>
>
> Some care is needed when applying these recommendations. As an example,
> assigned start points, usually in three groups of three, should be within
> about 40 degrees of right angles to the most common first legs. This
> ensures pilots go straight on track and not cruise through other start
> points after starting themselves.
>
>
>
> Surely it is not a coincidence that since these changes were introduced
> mid air accidents have virtually ceased and the number of pilots flying
> competitions has increased? We now have Flarms which are a benefit but
> cannot by itself explain the improvement. The major circumstance where
> midair collisions occur is in or when a glider is joining a thermal.
> Statistically you can build a pyramid starting with the number of times a
> glider joins another or a group thermalling. The next line is when a less
> than optimum but not immediately dangerous situation occurs, then a highly
> dangerous situation and at the top of the pyramid an actual midair. By
> training we can reduce the progression but there is always a correlation.
> The more times gliders join a turning glider, the more accidents at the
> top of the pyramid.
>
>
>
> Accidents when gliders are following the same track or cross each others
> path as can occur in an AAT are extremely rare and a circumstance where
> Flarms are particularly effective.
>
> For these reasons it is very concerning that some pilots are advocating
> and consideration is being given to returning to conditions which obtained
> during the years when we had an epidemic of accidents. Start lines result
> in pilots starting together and gaggling is far worse, particularly on blue
> days, just as occurred years ago with unallocated start points I
> understand that some pilots like to fly as a team or a pair. Not sure that
> the silent majority are happy when our best pilots, perhaps hoping or
> training for international team selection , fly as a pair. The advantages
> of pair or team flying are such that when the best pilots do it, not much
> chance for the rest. It may well be GFA policy to encourage pair flying by
> using start lines but I hope they are aware of the potential risks.
>
>
>
> Having safe competitions must be our first priority.
>
>
>
> Harry Medlicott
>
>
>
> *From:* rolf a. buelter <rbuel...@hotmail.com>
>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 02, 2014 2:45 PM
>
> *To:* aus soaring <aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [Aus-soaring] The nationals: a proposal
>
>
>
> As comp pilot permission of team flying will be a disincentive. Would not
> prevent me to come but together with other factors make it less likely.
>
> As GFA member I would not welcome to subsidise towing cost for comp
> pilots, including myself.
>
> Rgds - Rolf
>
>
> > From: go_soar...@hotmail.com
> > Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 10:43:35 +1000
> > To: aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> > Subject: [Aus-soaring] The nationals: a proposal
> >
> > G'day All,
> >
> > What do you think of the below?
> >
> > Keen to hear from those who aren't going for team selection, would you
> still turn up to the team selection years (or to the nationals that allowed
> pair flying every other year)?
> >
> > Also from non-comp pilots, how would you feel about the GFA spending
> money on the tug ferry fees?
> >
> > & from people who are generally in the organisation of comps, would this
> be better or worse for you or your club?
> >
> > What are other advantages & disadvantages that I've forgotten about? Or
> points I've made, but over looked or got incorrect?
> >
> > Other?
> >
> >
> > Cheers,
> > WPP
> >
> >
> >
> > As you're all aware, gliding in Australia is oversubscribed with
> competitions, as well as the team selection process being far to onerous. I
> have a simple solution to all this.
> >
> > At the recent Waikerie Club & Sports Class Nationals, it was seen that
> it's easily possible & safe to task wet & dry gliders together - using
> start lines.
> >
> > I propose that we hold one nationals every biannual year, which will
> house all classes - except 20m class. Run using the GFA national rules as
> it is now.
> >
> > I propose we combine STD & 15m class together & run a '15m performance'
> class, then award the highest placed STD & Racing class glider/pilot as the
> national champion - for history sake. Why run it as a combined class? It's
> not as much fun flying against 7 other competitors, when you could be
> challenging yourself against 30 plus others!
> >
> > The same could be said for 18m & Open Class, combine them (as they often
> are) as an 'Open' Class. The only difference here, the 18m gliders/pilots
> would have to declare what class they were going for the national champion
> title in.
> >
> > Alternatively, have the 18m & Open Class separate - & only combine them
> should the Open entries be not enough to make its own class outright. Again
> though, is competing against 7 other gliders that much fun?
> >
> > Club would be run as it is now. Simple.
> >
> > How many competitors would this attract at a site? Probably 80-90 odd
> gliders. That's crazy I hear you say. Not really, in years gone past they
> used to get those numbers (& more!) & managed.
> >
> > Gliding is shrinking. The only clubs that are running nationals now are
> big clubs, & are all at sites where they can handle such numbers. So the
> site isn't the issue.
> >
> > The tugs are an issue. Or are they? Simple solution. If GFA want to see
> their sport & population grow, they'll put their money where their mouth
> is! Pay at least 2/3's of the tug ferry costs for the competitors. Done.
> It'd be no different to what it is now in SA where we have to pay large tug
> levies.
> >
> > This idea/proposal. Run it every biannual year, with every other year
> running as a team selection competition, let's call it the 'open' comp for
> now. This 'Open' comp would be run exactly as the nationals is, except
> 'pair' flying would be allowed.
> >
> > Note! I didn't say team flying, team flying to me could result with
> multiple gliders flying around in a 6 ship gaggle every day to improve
> their chances of winning. So only pairs would be allowed, teams would be
> extremely frowned upon.
> >
> > Note! If & when a solo pilot wins the 'Open' comp - they'd still be
> eligible to make the team. Though I'll leave the team selection guidelines
> to the ITC in this proposal.
> >
> > Would the people still turn up to this 'Open' comp if they're not
> interested in team selection? I think so. As it's still an organised 2wk
> gliding event to go flying with their mates. Maybe more would turn up than
> normal, as they'd be able to fly alongside their 'pair' flying mate - & not
> get shot down as they would now!
> >
> > Alternatively. Run a nationals every year, however only every other year
> will be used for selection - & this particular year, 'pair' flying would be
> allowed. Easy.
> >
> > Why leave 20m class out? We want this class to grow. It wouldn't grow as
> fast as it could if it were included at the nats/open comp. Just run it at
> a State champs every year, with only the team selection year as the one
> that counts.
> >
> >
> > Advantages of having only one big 2wk competition a year...
> > * It's only 2wks out of your precious 4wks a year annual leave.
> > * Only one lot of organisation people get put out every year. Clubs &
> the organisation less likely to get burnt out.
> > * State comps, regattas & coaching events will grow: as people will have
> an extra 2wks a year to spend how ever they choose.
> > * If you're only after team selection, then in the 'off' years, the
> pilot could go to the European Gliding Championships, or other European
> nationals to get vital experience in helping AUS become a world leader in
> gliding.
> > * More people in towns. Greater support from councils. Greater chance of
> major sponsorship (GFA should pay for a dedicated sponsorship & advertiser
> of the event - leaving this up to clubs is never going to work, as it
> hasn't up to now. Ultimately we don't know what we're doing, & we just
> don't have the man power or time to do it now). Greater exposure for
> gliding in general.
> > * Potentially attract more international competitors due to the amount
> of numbers & likely better competition in each class. Which as a result
> will make our pilots better. We could advertise it like the 'World Cup'
> that the paragliders have. Advertisers & media can spin up & promote it!
> > * God forbid, pilots could spend their other 2wks a year having a
> regular holiday with their family or friends!!
> >
> >
> > Disadvantages...
> > * It's a risk to try it, due unknown amount of competitors that would
> turn up. I think, what we're doing now isn't working (for AUS international
> results), why not try something new! WA State comps saw great success with
> numbers growing once they combined into one big class (Don Woodward said he
> 'raced' one other competitor in 15m class one year before they changed the
> format, that's definitely no fun!).
> > * Tugs. This can be fixed if GFA put their hand into their pockets to
> help their/our sport grow.
> >
> >
> > Regards,
> > Adam Woolley
> > _______________________________________________
> > Aus-soaring mailing list
> > Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> > To check or change subscription details, visit:
> > http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
>
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
