To some rules are boring. But rules make the race! The only difference between a glider race and a tiddlywinks contest is the rules! The character of racing has changed a lot as rules change, and it will continue to evolve.
1. Measurement vs. incentives.
The Big Picture of rules evolution in the US is this: we have come more and more to understand that good rules balance the two functions, Rules as measurement vs. rules as incentives. The minute a rule says “this is how we measure your performance,” the pilot asks, “how does affect my strategy?” In an ideal set of rules, it doesn’t. You just go fly, as fast as you can. However, often rules set up tomeasure well leave lots of options for strategizing and gaming the rules. Most of the changes from the US rules committee come with exquisite attention to avoiding lots of strategizing and getting contests more to a “just fly” experience.
Here is a classic example. Why is it that at worlds, there are huge gaggles, and start gate games, unlike in the US? We’ve all puzzled at this question. Some speculate that it’s a cautious national character, vs. “individualistic” Americans. But put those cautious Europeans in a Grand Prix and they fly like maniacs.
No, the answer is simple, and we’ve known about it for at least 20 years, since Bruno Gautenbrink’s famous speech. It’s all in the day devaluation formulas. In world rules, the “lone wolf” who starts early and makes it home when the gaggle lands out gets little for his efforts. The lone duck who lands out when the gaggle makes it home, or who tries the “lone wolf” strategy but the gaggle eats him up, loses catastrophic amounts of points. The result: there are no wolves left in Europe. The incentives are not perfect in the US (we also need to work on our day devaluation formulas) but a lot better.
It is very common in Europe for contest pilots to indulge in 2 hours of start gate roulette, and then all land out. This happened to us several times at the Szeged WGC. Yet each pilot is acting exquisitely rationally given the rules. In an Australian worlds, reported by Hank Nixon, it once happened on a blue day that nobody wanted to start first, and nobody did. The entire gaggle hung around all afternoon, and nobody went on course. Again, a perfectly rational decision for each pilot given the rules.
These are classic. The WGC day devaluation formulas and speed/distance formulas are excellent measurements if pilot behavior would only sit still. Alas they give horrible incentives for how to fly.
Do we want races that value the pilot, his reading of the weather, and his machine? Or do we want races that value start roulette, tactics, big gaggles, and exploit tricks in the rules? You can achieve either once you understand that rules must balance measurement and incentives.
2. Should US use Worlds rules?
This brings me to a longstanding controversy, and a point which I must admit is pure editorial rather than history. Many pilots say the US should use IGC rules, and just ditch our local efforts. Many say it would prepare US pilots better for world competition. Having been there, I can vouch they are right on the latter point. Most of my failures were failures to execute the strategies demanded by world rules, not failures to thermal or glide well.
But many pilots who advocate this have not read the world rules nor experienced them. I have, and can now state with a bit of authority that this step would be a disaster for US soaring.
Imagine if the US adopted rules that led to mass landouts, huge gaggles, and start gate roulette. Even fewer would show up. Mass landouts means you need either crew or a motor.
(I finally figured out at the worlds why almost all new European racing gliders have motors. I was headed to a certain landout, but I was in the company of 5 other gliders. Good, I thought, we’ll all land together and help each other out. Nope, as we hit about 600 feet, one by one Brrrrrr. Out came the motors and off they went. As I sat all alone in my nice field in Hungary, I thought the whole Luftwaffe was off on a raid as the powered gliders passed over me. To fly European contests, you need a crew or you need a motor. Or both.)
If we require crews, or motors we’ll lose half our pilots. The contest cannot be run only to prepare the US Team – two pilots isn’t enough to pay for the towplane.
All of this comes from a simple failure to recognize the difference between measurement and incentives in world rules. Here are a few more classics.
- Start. The main start geometry at the worlds is an unlimited altitude gate. What’s the result? Cloud flying. They do have a procedure (not used at Szeged) for a limited altitude gate, but no time or speed limit before the start. Quick, this is a quiz, what do you expect pilots to do? That’s right, they still climb in the clouds, then dive at VNE parallel to the line and duck out when they hit the top. The US cylinder with start-anywhere and 2 minute under the top puts an end to all this nonsense.
- 2 pts km/h 1 pt km. There is a lovely provision in world rules for a “simplified” scoring system, in which you get 2 points per km and 1 point per km/h. This is a great idea for measurement. It’s a disaster for incentives. At the beginning of a race, you have to make a roll of the dice to go for distance or speed. Needless to say, it is so transparently silly it has never been used.
- Time out distance. A race can be called where you are scored up to the maximum time. Good measurement. The optimal strategy is to go deep, and up at the downwind turnpoint, dive for the ground at time-out, and then try to squeak home for the bonus.
- There are circumstances in which you’re better off stopping and orbiting rather than finishing. You need a sharp team captain to keep track of scores and tell you if this is the case.
Instead, the worlds should become more like our rules (and our rules need some work too, especially on day devaluation formulas). And they are. US start, and finish procedures are slowly diffusing eastward, as is the popularity of the TAT which they call the AAT. This year, the IGC recognizes that gaggles are a real problem, after two midairs and are determined to do something about it. Perhaps they will finally change the devaluation formulas, which they have known for 20 years to be the source of the problem, as well as rely more on AATs.
3. Rules process
Back to history. One thing that happened in US is a change from “top down” to a “democratic” (or at least “representative democracy”) rules process. Once upon a time, SSA directors made rules. The SSA directors are hard working people, but many are not contest pilots, and the system didn’t work all that well. Over time, the current setup emerged. Our rules committee is elected, is composed of active racing pilots, there is a poll, a transparent meeting with published minutes, and all major changes are tried in regionals before implementation at nationals.
Like any representative democracy, it’s the worst possible system – except for all the others. When some pilot gets a bright idea like “let’s just add 15 minutes to everybody’s time,” or “we should have a club class like the rest of the world” it can seem like it takes forever to get it adopted; or it frustratingly doesn’t happen. Getting a rule change involves not just convincing the pooh-bah in charge; you have to educate and convince the entire pilot base. But the system does not produce huge errors like the world class. I think much of the IGC’s problems stem from its structure. The people are all hard-working and intelligent. Good legislation comes from a good constitution, not necessarily from wise individuals.
