Or you can get a better system that does not need you to cycle thru them at 
all!!! Fly thru any one and you start

Sent from my iPhone

> On Feb 14, 2014, at 13:55, [email protected] wrote:
> 
> Send Aus-soaring mailing list submissions to
>    [email protected]
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    [email protected]
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    [email protected]
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Aus-soaring digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>   1. FW: FYI (Future Aviation)
>   2. Re: The nationals: a proposal (rolf a. buelter)
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 07:14:21 +1030
> From: "Future Aviation" <[email protected]>
> Subject: [Aus-soaring] FW: FYI
> To: "'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'"
>    <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain;    charset="us-ascii"
> 
> Good morning all!
> 
> If you are interested there is a nice video of the new 
> ASH 30 Mi Open Class 2-seater on this website. 
> 
> http://www.australian-soaring-corowa.com/latest.php
> 
> Please enjoy!
> 
> Bernard
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Sat, 15 Feb 2014 07:55:21 +1100
> From: "rolf a. buelter" <[email protected]>
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The nationals: a proposal
> To: aus soaring <[email protected]>
> Message-ID: <[email protected]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
> 
> Jarek,
> 
> get with the times and use a program which lets you enter any number of start 
> points and then one tap on the screen to cycle through them. I ditched the 
> Garmin years ago and am still not for start lines.
> 
> Rgds - Rolf
> 
> To: [email protected]
> From: [email protected]
> Date: Fri, 14 Feb 2014 14:21:15 +1100
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The nationals: a proposal
> 
> Hi,
> 
>> From my observations, the most vocal opponents of using start line are the 
>> pilots who still use instruments that do not allow visualisation of the 
>> start line (i.e. Garmins, Cambridge 20 etc.) but only show the distance to 
>> the centre point of the line.
> 
> Also, consider what has to happens if the pilot changes her / his decision 
> with regard to the one of the allocated points before the start.  How many 
> clicks / touches within the navigation program are required to switch from 
> one point to another and where are the pilot eyes while she / he performing 
> this operation... certainly not  outside maintaining good lookout.
> 
> With the WinPilot, it is just one click between the two pre-nominated start 
> points, but if I want to change to the third one, I need to do no less than 5 
> clicks and navigate through 3 different screens, you do not get such problems 
> with the start line.
> 
> Regards
> 
> Jarek
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <[email protected]>
> To:"Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia." 
> <[email protected]>
> Cc:
> Sent:Fri, 14 Feb 2014 13:29:27 +1100
> Subject:Re: [Aus-soaring] The nationals: a proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> 
> 
> Some interesting comments from Matthew.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His comment in the first paragraph re Tocumwal, is actually a
> very good reason supporting the  use of  allocated start points. 
> With 2/3rds of the points out, what we have is 1/3 usable. EVERY  pilot still
> has one start point available in the soarable part of the start area. This is 
>  adequate.
> Contrast this to the hypothetical situation where the one and only (per 
> class) start
> line has been set up in the unsoarable part of the sky.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the nature of the beast, it is somewhat unlikely that
> increasing the length of a start line from 10k to 20 k is going to improve
> safety very much, if at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Multiple class pre-start gaggling can be minimized with well set
> tasks, in which it is essential (if the task is to be completed), for each
> class to get going soon after the opening of their gate. The trend to 
> under-set
> tasks at Australian competitions continues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comments in the last two paragraphs are noted.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is an idea that to my knowledge has NOT been thrown into
> the ring to date.  The idea is to use allocated multiple start lines, with
> a possible length of say 2-5k. I have not really thought about all the 
> possible
> ramifications, and whether or not it would actually achieve anything positive,
> but perhaps it is at least worth considering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Gary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matthew
> Scutter
> Sent: Friday, 14 February 2014 12:06 AM
> To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.
> Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] The nationals: a proposal
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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" <[email protected]> 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: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] 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 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sent: Sunday, February
> 02, 2014 2:45 PM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To: aus soaring 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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: [email protected]
> 
>> Date: Sun, 2 Feb 2014 10:43:35 +1000
> 
>> To: [email protected]
> 
>> 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
> 
>> [email protected]
> 
>> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> 
>> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> [email protected]
> 
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> [email protected]
> 
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Email sent using Optus Webmail
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> [email protected]
> To check or change subscription details, visit:
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring                    
>      
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: 
> <http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/private/aus-soaring/attachments/20140215/969ce110/attachment.html>
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Aus-soaring mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
> 
> End of Aus-soaring Digest, Vol 125, Issue 48
> ********************************************

_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring

Reply via email to