task setting

Very needed. The sport raised from the outside world but now it's time for institution to catch back and define rulebook,guidelines and procedure. If the formats are left too open nothing of this will ever be possible

From what I know, I believe level homogeineity is indeed a first class safety parametrer. Thank for bringing this up.

This one seems obvious. Fabien mentioned using more restricted sportive airspace on too large unlandable places.

My Suggestion: just Mark landable areas and have waypoints only for windsocks (really in place).

Why:
1) A landable place ist not always and ever landable. WHO guarantees, that a landable, ist safe?
2) I am not sure if a landable waypoint File is really a contribution to safety. In my experience it is safer to assess landing Options visually than to calculate reachable outlanding options from waypoint files. The latter allows the Pilot to Push the Limit more effecively, which does nit result in a safety gain.

Hello Robert

Good point!!

I suggest also, that the tasksetter published standard tasks in different weather situations where bomb-out fields are marked but also other potential dangers like powerlines, turbulent zones, etc.

Hey,
And this is what is already happening. MD usually talks about the available landings, difficult parts along the race, etc, etc...
When you are flying for the 1st time in a place, it is almost impossible to remember all the suitable landing fileds, no landing zones, power lines...
And during a briefing, most of the pilots are on their instruments, not paying much attention. After the briefing, never enough time to study properly the map if you have to take off in the 1st ones...

I think all landing fields, dangerous areas, etc... should be in the instruments (airpace, waypoints).

- NO LANDING zones definition : a zone not providing any suitable landing fields and not allowing a safe crossing (forest, valley, urban areas, airports, etc…) Every area should be treated case by case.
- Suitable landing definition : a flat field with no obstacles in entry that can allow a safe landing without wind (based on high performance gliders) Sailplane database ?
- Recommended landing fields : Suitable fields providing an easy access for retrieve, authorization from the farmer, windsocks, etc…

I agree that low altitude needs to be more of a focus than it currently is. We penalise for flying up into airspace when there is close to zero risk of an accident (until > 150m in) and reward pilots for flying below reserve altitude (which we mandate they must carry). This is an interesting proposal worthy of discussion and trial.

In my opinion:
+ Some turnpoints could have a minimum altitude requirement for safety reasons - for example, over highly urbanized areas or near cable cars.
+ Instruments already show the estimated altitude at the turnpoint, so we have electronic support for that.
But:
+/- What if we don’t have enough altitude to reach the turnpoint? Searching for lift nearby could mean a time-costly delay. On the other hand, it could add an interesting twist - a bit like a low final glide, but in the middle of the task, and in the middle of the sky.
- We don’t trust altitude readings as much as we trust 2D GPS position.

"The difference between this or a low level no fly zone is the difference between encouraging safe tactics
And punishing unsafe ones"

I guess that's more a question of a glass half full vs. half empty perspective, stick or carrot, it would achieve the same - but I prefer your positive incentive for AGL clearance approach, as we discussed elsewhere.

But there is a "but": given your current description of spherical TPs (& assuming it's possible for our flight computers to do the maths efficiently & quickly), unless you also change the historically typical spacing of TPs in a comp (I think in the British-Dutch Open Ager in '23, we had two @30km apart), people are still going to ridge run the big stretches in between. So unless I have misunderstood, you only partly solve the problem with spherical TPs...

In another thread, you described it as "popping balloons in the air", instead of picking up TP cylinders.

It put the image of a pilot as Pac-Man gobbling up points on the way around a maze, so what if there was mesh of imaginary balloons (or better, cylinders with generous ground clearance) between TPs? These "breadcrumbs" would be optional, but if you don't "eat" any between TPs, you only score 50% of the distance points for that leg; if you pick up say 5 breadcrumbs between each TP, you add 10% for each, so eating 5 between TPs scores you 100% distance points for that leg.

In effect, flying Pac-Man style, acts like a multiplier on the main course distance, while still setting TP-style tasks as today.

It also allows task setters to set great TPs - we still want the joy of 100+km tasks, right? - but also allows them to incentivise pilots away from known / likely problem areas by not laying down +10% breadcrumbs in those areas. You can still incentivise alternative route choices (flats vs hills) by putting alternative trails of breadcrumbs down.

It is an interesting idea, even though I feel it will be hard to be implemented in all TP's on a task.

But, there is "One particular TP" that it can be implemented increasing safety all the times.

And this is the... "GOAL" I will not give any numbers, but you get the idea. If we have a Goal altitude that a reserve throw is still possible (say 100 m) perhaps the fatality in Brazil, and the accident in Ager, could have had a more favorable outcome...

Again, we are brainstorming in here, I do not "suggest" something out of a "strong conviction" or anything...

Markos, I wasn't there, but I think the fatality in Brazil happened when the pilot was on final approach to land, so no longer racing, with the goal field in the lee of some hills.

Thanks Bruce !
Before stating this solution won't work for tactical or strategical concern (advantage of gaggle flying, leading points escarmouche...), I'd like to think some more and get more detailed datas about radius compensation and total distance flow. It is something we used a lot in comp training and that indeed allow to keep the pack together when done correctly. Much better than the nothing at all currently done since years.

If optional, this is ok. I guess in the Alps, where you want to have that exact turnpoint there and not bigger (also because of safety) to guide pilots around an obstacle (like we do with our lake) it is not useful. Or much more headache for a tasksetter.

Haveing different radi for different glider types (we tried in HG) does in our area (alpine and sub-alpine) completely change the task and the tactical thinking behind.

Also, I am a bit against makeing tasks / tasksetting and scoring more complicated as it already is. Important that the pilots in the air understands what is going on. The case: If you are a number 1-5 pilot at the ranking, you don't race against the whole field, you just race against the 3-8 pilots around you in the ranking. Now imagine you have to know which radius your oponents has to take in order to have a idea on what is going on.

I’d like to return to a solution we had in the past — offering different harness sizes for pilots. There’s already a strong correlation between body weight and harness size, but we could take this further by developing harnesses that provide additional protection for heavier pilots.
Simply put: the heavier I am, the more protection I need installed under my seat plate. This approach would not only help balance the aerodynamic advantages of larger wings but also increase safety for heavier pilots, who experience higher impact forces due to greater energy in the system.
In the past, we had different harness sizes for bigger pilots, so this topic wasn’t much of an issue. However, since modern “submarine” harnesses have become similarly efficient across sizes, it has turned into a real concern.
From my point of view, the solution is straightforward: a smart harness design that allows adjustable protection — and possibly drag — depending on the pilot’s weight.

I'm a bit concerned about safety in case of MRT.
In nowadays PG high level comp pilots are not spread along the course but moving in a gaggle.
Therefore, let's imagine that pilot A flying an L size and pilot B flying an M size are flying next to each other towards TP1 and the next TP2 is on the right, there are two cases.
Case 1: pilot A is on the the left of Pilot B. Once pilot B reaches his radius he turns right while pilot A continues to reach his radius (shorter) and then turns right. No problem at all.
Case 2: pilot A is on the the right of Pilot B. Once pilot B reaches his radius he turns right while pilot A continues straight to reach his radius. Pilot B most likely would crash into pilot A.

I don't see how MRT can deal with a well controlled fairness.
Pilots are flying different task depending on their weight. But how do we set them so they compensate fairly the difference of performance.
Even if we find a ratio of total optimized distance to apply, it does not work very well in practical because the MRT can send the pilots in different places. For example, in heavy sink for the heavier pilot.
The other big problem is that it messes up the group dynamic also bringing unavoidable unfairness. For example, if there is just one heavy pilot on a group, the MRT will leave him out of the group dynamic which we know is a huge part of the performance.

Two high level competitions only this year showed me that certain people should not be in charge of making tasks for XC PG competitions if i want to be safe flying them. I can only imagine what would have happen with added complication of MRTs.

Basing MRT on weight and not on Wing Size addresses the issue of bigger pilots/profile drag. Nice.

Bruce, thanks to you and team for the effort you have put into MRT. Personally, as a hobbyist sports-class comp pilot, I think it's a very interesting direction (very generally: task scoring is already responsive to a range of factors, why should it not also be responsive to the additional factors MRT introduces).

I'm curious if you have been able to gather 'quantitative' data over the years of developing MRT what the preferences of the lighter pilots' are between what sounds like broadly two non-optimal choices? As you highlight above, with the "size/weight" issues interacting with the competition rules, how are these preferences different with and without MRT?

The two choices, perhaps oversimplified, being a) don't ballast up and accept the disadvantages/risk of the smaller gliders (performance, pilot demand, adverse events, ...) or b) fly a (somewhat) larger glider at the disadvantage/risk of carrying ballast? I understand that MRT intends to make (a) a much more available choice if being competitive is the goal but it does not remove what I understand to be a relatively higher risk in flying the (very) small gliders? I recall a recent podcast with a world-class pilot that mentioned they will blast up to some degree for that reason even with other "equalizer" systems in place due to this factor.

I'm not trying to burden MRT with solving every problem, this really is about learning more from the affected pilots (direct voices or indirectly through your work) what their view is. Perhaps the fact that MRT has 'only' been tested in CAT 2 competitions actually provides valuable insights here as lighter pilots may not participate in CAT 1 in the first place due to the challenges they currently face.

Is there any data on the effects of this proposal on ESS/ goal crowding ? Will it have the tendency to increase the numbers arriving at ESS (and goal) at the same time ?

Yes agreed ! I believe this should go with Toni's proposal here about MD training and minimal curriculum : https://gagglereport.org/node/18