How does Winscore calculate finish altitude?

At 01:48 28 July 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>BB wrote:
>>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>>>pilot enters the
>>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>>>still
>>> racing.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules
>>change in this
>> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet,
>>90 knots and
>> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>
>Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below
>the Minimum Finish
>Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually
>surprised to find
>that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines
>as to how to
>penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder.
> Given the
>difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing,
>missing by
>50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but
>it should also
>never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...
>
>Marc

DISCLAIMER: I understand under the new rules speed
points are no longer allocated pro-rata so as to create
bit more spread at the top of the scoresheet. My math
may, therefore, be a bit off.

The worst case scenario for making marginal final glide
decisions is on a short task where a pilot is climbing
slowly trying to make it up to final glide altitude.
The slow climb takes up lots of minutes per foot gained
and every minute drags down your speed relatively more
on shorter tasks.

So, say you are climbing at 2 knots. It will cost you
about 4 points for every hundred feet you climb, or
about 40 points to go from a white-knuckle 2-knot glide
to 0' at the finish up to a 2-knot glide to a 1000'
AGL arrival. For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000'
drops to 2 points per 1000'.

You could imagine a penalty structure that looks something
like: 8 points per hundred feet divided by the minimum
task time (or the winners time, or your time). This
eliminates most of the incentive to cut a last thermal
short since it is in the pilot's interest to keep climbing
if he thinks there is any chance he will be under the
minimum finish height and he is achieveing a climb
rate of 2 knots or more.

If you're climbing in your final thermal at less than
2 knots you are looking at a dicey glide no matter
what, and probably are contemplating a rolling finish.
It's not clear to me that a penalty structure built
around slower than 2 knot climb rate would do any good
- plus the penalties start to get kind of large (e.g.
16 points per 100 feet if you pick 1 knot as the climb
rate).

With the penalty structure I've described, if you finish
at 500' below the minimum finish height (so you are
at most 500' AGL) and actually fly to more or less
a full pattern it would take about 2.5-3 minutes to
get from the edge of a 1-mile cylinder to a full stop.
This is based on looking at a couple of my contest
finishes at Parowan where the runway is pretty long
and they were asking us to roll all the way to the
end. Guess what? The penalty as described above would
work out to the equivalent of an additional 2.5 minutes,
so the worst case scenario for a low flying finish,
would be no worse than taking the time to landing and
stopping. If you just barely miss the minimum height
you are a lot better off.

In terms of coming to a screeching halt in the middle
of the runway on a rolling finish - it's worth 2-5
points in my estimation. You need to weigh that against
all the other safety considerations and potential penalties
that might be imposed of you were really ver-the-top
about it. Plus the ill-will from your crew when they
have to schlep your glider halfway across the airport.

9B

At 01:48 28 July 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>BB wrote:
>>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>>>pilot enters the
>>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>>>still
>>> racing.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules
>>change in this
>> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet,
>>90 knots and
>> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>
>Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below
>the Minimum Finish
>Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually
>surprised to find
>that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines
>as to how to
>penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder.
> Given the
>difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing,
>missing by
>50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but
>it should also
>never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...
>
>Marc

DISCLAIMER: I understand under the new rules speed
points are no longer allocated pro-rata so as to create
bit more spread at the top of the scoresheet. My math
may, therefore, be a bit off.

The worst case scenario for making marginal final glide
decisions is on a short task where a pilot is climbing
slowly trying to make it up to final glide altitude.
The slow climb takes up lots of minutes per foot gained
and every minute drags down your speed relatively more
on shorter tasks.

So, say you are climbing at 2 knots. It will cost you
about 4 points for every hundred feet you climb, or
about 40 points to go from a white-knuckle 2-knot glide
to 0' at the finish up to a 2-knot glide to a 1000'
AGL arrival. For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000'
drops to 2 points per 1000'.

You could imagine a penalty structure that looks something
like: 8 points per hundred feet divided by the minimum
task time (or the winners time, or your time). This
eliminates most of the incentive to cut a last thermal
short since it is in the pilot's interest to keep climbing
if he thinks there is any chance he will be under the
minimum finish height and he is achieveing a climb
rate of 2 knots or more.

If you're climbing in your final thermal at less than
2 knots you are looking at a dicey glide no matter
what, and probably are contemplating a rolling finish.
It's not clear to me that a penalty structure built
around slower than 2 knot climb rate would do any good
- plus the penalties start to get kind of large (e.g.
16 points per 100 feet if you pick 1 knot as the climb
rate).

With the penalty structure I've described, if you finish
at 500' below the minimum finish height (so you are
at most 500' AGL) and actually fly to more or less
a full pattern it would take about 2.5-3 minutes to
get from the edge of a 1-mile cylinder to a full stop.
This is based on looking at a couple of my contest
finishes at Parowan where the runway is pretty long
and they were asking us to roll all the way to the
end. Guess what? The penalty as described above would
work out to the equivalent of an additional 2.5 minutes,
so the worst case scenario for a low flying finish,
would be no worse than taking the time to landing and
stopping. If you just barely miss the minimum height
you are a lot better off.

In terms of coming to a screeching halt in the middle
of the runway on a rolling finish - it's worth 2-5
points in my estimation. You need to weigh that against
all the other safety considerations and potential penalties
that might be imposed of you were really ver-the-top
about it. Plus the ill-will from your crew when they
have to schlep your glider halfway across the airport.

9B

At 01:48 28 July 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>BB wrote:
>>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>>>pilot enters the
>>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>>>still
>>> racing.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules
>>change in this
>> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet,
>>90 knots and
>> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>
>Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below
>the Minimum Finish
>Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually
>surprised to find
>that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines
>as to how to
>penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder.
> Given the
>difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing,
>missing by
>50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but
>it should also
>never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...
>
>Marc

DISCLAIMER: I understand under the new rules speed
points are no longer allocated pro-rata so as to create
bit more spread at the top of the scoresheet. My math
may, therefore, be a bit off.

The worst case scenario for making marginal final glide
decisions is on a short task where a pilot is climbing
slowly trying to make it up to final glide altitude.
The slow climb takes up lots of minutes per foot gained
and every minute drags down your speed relatively more
on shorter tasks.

So, say you are climbing at 2 knots. It will cost you
about 4 points for every hundred feet you climb, or
about 40 points to go from a white-knuckle 2-knot glide
to 0' at the finish up to a 2-knot glide to a 1000'
AGL arrival. For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000'
drops to 2 points per 1000'.

You could imagine a penalty structure that looks something
like: 8 points per hundred feet divided by the minimum
task time (or the winners time, or your time). This
eliminates most of the incentive to cut a last thermal
short since it is in the pilot's interest to keep climbing
if he thinks there is any chance he will be under the
minimum finish height and he is achieveing a climb
rate of 2 knots or more.

If you're climbing in your final thermal at less than
2 knots you are looking at a dicey glide no matter
what, and probably are contemplating a rolling finish.
It's not clear to me that a penalty structure built
around slower than 2 knot climb rate would do any good
- plus the penalties start to get kind of large (e.g.
16 points per 100 feet if you pick 1 knot as the climb
rate).

With the penalty structure I've described, if you finish
at 500' below the minimum finish height (so you are
at most 500' AGL) and actually fly to more or less
a full pattern it would take about 2.5-3 minutes to
get from the edge of a 1-mile cylinder to a full stop.
This is based on looking at a couple of my contest
finishes at Parowan where the runway is pretty long
and they were asking us to roll all the way to the
end. Guess what? The penalty as described above would
work out to the equivalent of an additional 2.5 minutes,
so the worst case scenario for a low flying finish,
would be no worse than taking the time to landing and
stopping. If you just barely miss the minimum height
you are a lot better off.

In terms of coming to a screeching halt in the middle
of the runway on a rolling finish - it's worth 2-5
points in my estimation. You need to weigh that against
all the other safety considerations and potential penalties
that might be imposed of you were really ver-the-top
about it. Plus the ill-will from your crew when they
have to schlep your glider halfway across the airport.

9B

At 20:42 28 July 2007, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>At 01:48 28 July 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>BB wrote:
>>>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>>>>pilot enters the
>>>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>>>>still
>>>> racing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules
>>>change in this
>>> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet,
>>>90 knots and
>>> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>>
>>Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below
>>the Minimum Finish
>>Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually
>>surprised to find
>>that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines
>>as to how to
>>penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder.
>> Given the
>>difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing,
>>missing by
>>50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but
>>it should also
>>never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...
>>
>>Marc
>
>DISCLAIMER: I understand under the new rules speed
>points are no longer allocated pro-rata so as to create
>bit more spread at the top of the scoresheet. My math
>may, therefore, be a bit off.
>
>The worst case scenario for making marginal final glide
>decisions is on a short task where a pilot is climbing
>slowly trying to make it up to final glide altitude.
>The slow climb takes up lots of minutes per foot gained
>and every minute drags down your speed relatively more
>on shorter tasks.
>
>So, say you are climbing at 2 knots. It will cost you
>about 4 points for every hundred feet you climb, or
>about 40 points to go from a white-knuckle 2-knot glide
>to 0' at the finish up to a 2-knot glide to a 1000'
>AGL arrival. For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000'
>drops to 2 points per 1000'.
>
>You could imagine a penalty structure that looks something
>like: 8 points per hundred feet divided by the minimum
>task time (or the winners time, or your time). This
>eliminates most of the incentive to cut a last thermal
>short since it is in the pilot's interest to keep climbing
>if he thinks there is any chance he will be under the
>minimum finish height and he is achieveing a climb
>rate of 2 knots or more.
>
>If you're climbing in your final thermal at less than
>2 knots you are looking at a dicey glide no matter
>what, and probably are contemplating a rolling finish.
>It's not clear to me that a penalty structure built
>around slower than 2 knot climb rate would do any good
>- plus the penalties start to get kind of large (e.g.
>16 points per 100 feet if you pick 1 knot as the climb
>rate).
>
>With the penalty structure I've described, if you finish
>at 500' below the minimum finish height (so you are
>at most 500' AGL) and actually fly to more or less
>a full pattern it would take about 2.5-3 minutes to
>get from the edge of a 1-mile cylinder to a full stop.
>This is based on looking at a couple of my contest
>finishes at Parowan where the runway is pretty long
>and they were asking us to roll all the way to the
>end. Guess what? The penalty as described above would
>work out to the equivalent of an additional 2.5 minutes,
>so the worst case scenario for a low flying finish,
>would be no worse than taking the time to landing and
>stopping. If you just barely miss the minimum height
>you are a lot better off.
>
>In terms of coming to a screeching halt in the middle
>of the runway on a rolling finish - it's worth 2-5
>points in my estimation. You need to weigh that against
>all the other safety considerations and potential penalties
>that might be imposed of you were really ver-the-top
>about it. Plus the ill-will from your crew when they
>have to schlep your glider halfway across the airport.
>
>9B
>
Typo:

For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000' drops to 2
points per 1000'.

Should read:

For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 100' drops to 2
points per 100'.

9B

Good post Andy, but I believe we need a set penalty
to discourage deliberately doing a rolling finish on
a good day. I watched a well known pilot make a rolling
finish every day for 5 days in a row (1000 feet and
2 mile finish cylinder). I have recommended the rules
committee consider the following:

up to 100 feet low = 5 point penalty
up to 200 feet low = 10 point penalty
up to 300 feet low = 15 point penalty
up to 400 feet low = 20 point penalty
rolling finish = 25 point penalty
JJ

>Should read:
>
>For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 100' drops to 2
>points per 100'.
>
>9B

On Jul 27, 7:14 pm, BB <john.cochr...@gsb.uchicago.edu> wrote:
> > In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the pilot enters the
> > cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder still
> > racing.
>
> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules change in this
> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet, 90 knots and
> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>
> If you don't think people racing inside the cylinder is a good idea,
> then what you want is a "hard floor". 499 feet = distance points only.
> Now, again, everybody inside 1 mile is done racing, but pilots aim for
> 500 feet, not for 50 feet.
>
> John Cochrane

That is easily fixed with a penalty that should be in place of
finishing low. The way I have seen it done is to apply a 1 to 2 minute
penalty for each hundred feed low. The idea is to make it more
beneficial to climb than to finish low.

Brian

kirk.stant wrote:
> I still think the current hard cutoff at 500 ft is a poor setup, due
> to the difficuty for the pilot to accurately judge his altitude at the
> time of crossing the line. If the goal is to make pilots finish
> higher (for whatever reason), then there needs to be a finish window
> the pilot can aim for that if he accurately figures his final glide,
> will not be penalized. Let's assume we can hit a 200' window - and
> assume that 300' agl is the cutoff for a safe pattern. Setup the
> scoring so anywhere in the 200 ft window (300'agl to 500'agl ) is
> neutral - if below the nominal 500', then add the time it would have
> taken to climb in (based on the climb rate in the last thermal). That
> would remove any incentive to finish lower than 500', but give a
> reasonable window to shoot for before a bigger penalty (automatic
> rolling finish score) kicks in.
>
> Comment? Obvious problems?

I'd suggest the opposite. I think I should be rewarded for every foot
that I have over the minimum finish height of, say, 500' AGL. So, if I
finish at 2000' AGL, I should get the actual time I spent climbing the
last 1500' deducted from my task time. It's more accurate, and it
favors my chosen strategy, what's not to like? 8^)

In reality, any halfway decent glide computer, or software with access
to pressure altitude, will prior to takeoff either automatically
determine the field elevation or let the pilot set it manually. The
same sort of problem exists with the start cylinder if one can climb to
the top. The glide software I use (which I wrote) automatically
determines field elevation just prior to takeoff. It monitors my
altitude in the start cylinder, signals me if I climb through the top
and does a countdown when I reenter, provides progressive warnings as I
approach the hard altitude limit (usually 17500' MSL out here), and
automatically adjusts my arrival altitude based on the minimum finish
height, all based on that initial field elevation measurement. I'm
confident that this will work within a margin of 10 or 20 feet, as it
using the pressure altitude that will ultimately show up in the IGC
file, and I don't have to pay much attention to any of it.

The SN10 also does a pretty good job at this (mine is better, of
course), what's the issue?

Marc

However it is done the one thing I agree on is that it needs to be
very simple so everyone understands it.

I like JJ's plan and it is simlar to what was done at Region 8.

IIRC it was something like
1 to 100 feet low = 5 point penalty
101 to 200 feet = 10 point penalty
201 to 300 feet = 15 point penalty
301 to 400 feet = 20 point penalty
401 to 500 feet = 25 point penalty
etc.

The plan has a lot going for it.
1. It is simple
2. it or variations of the penalty make it only a small penalty to
finish a little low and a larger penalty to finish lower.
3. There is no racing in the finish cylinder. One you enter the
cylinder you can concentrate on landing safely.
4. The penalty is not so severe that there is little incentive to
scratch around low outside the cylinder since unless it is a
reasonable thermal it will be more advantagous to take the penalty
than to take a weak thermal.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL.

On Jul 29, 4:01 pm, Marc Ramsey <m...@ranlogREMOVE.com> wrote:
> The SN10 also does a pretty good job at this (mine is better, of
> course), what's the issue?
>


The issue is that the the altimeter setting is usually unknown at the
time of landing but it is almost certainly different for the altimeter
setting at takeoff time. The altmeter error on landing, if still
using the takeoff altimeter setting, may exceed 100 feet even if there
is no significant weather change.

Andy

I don't find this to be true, Andy. Altimeters need
to be re-set primarily when landing at a destination
1000's of miles away from the takeoff location. I find
my altimeter to be surprisingly accurate when landing
at my takeoff location after a 4 hour flight. This
is true with the SN10 altineter, also.
JJ


>The issue is that the the altimeter setting is usually
>unknown at the
>time of landing but it is almost certainly different
>for the altimeter
>setting at takeoff time. The altmeter error on landing,
>if still
>using the takeoff altimeter setting, may exceed 100
>feet even if there
>is no significant weather change.
>
>Andy
>
>