This document is intended as a *starting point* for work an an overhaul of our system - we do not believe that *single* or *minor* tweaks to the system will provide the improved long term results we need from our teams, rather a coherent set of changes are required.
Please take the time to review and provide feedback – if you would all please acknowledge receipt of the document then at least John and I will know that you have received it – the holiday season can be particularly taxing on personal time and there is quite a lot to digest and reflect on in the proposals.
Obviously, both John and myself are motivated to take these proposals to the next level of feasibility – studying and testing the ideas further and fleshing out the system design and infrastructure ideas we propose. The ideas within, while not necessarily new, have, we believe, been coordinated in new ways to solve multiple issues at once, and we wish to provide visibility into our thinking and invite comment before we go further with the ideas.
US Team Improvement Proposal
Peter Deane and John Cochrane
November 23 2010
This document synthesizes the recent discussions and website effort on how to improve our competitiveness.
US competitive performance at the World level is poor. But our pilots are not fundamentally any worse than the top Europeans – we should be doing better.
Our pilots suffer from much less preparation, training, and experience at WGC style flying, and less developed ground support. In addition, few pilots are seriously preparing for or pursuing WGC participation.
The first thing we need to do is state the mission – the purpose of the US team is to produce teams that will win. Period.
Our specific recommendations focus on three areas:
1. Training and coaching. Team training camps, with coaching and opportunity for pilot development at the highest levels are an essential addition to our soaring infrastructure. To make them work, participation must count toward team selection. We need coach in charge of team development. We recommend a substantial shifting of resources to this development effort in place of pilot expenses.
2. Team selection. Our team selection methods have not kept up with the changing nature of the international scene, the fragmentation of classes, and pilots evident preference to skip across classes rather than drive across the country. We must use information across all contests to pick the best pilots. Racing skill rather than recent experience with one particular class of sailplane is for most classes a better indicator of success. Removing the “barrier to entry” of long cross country drives will also increase pilot interest in trying for the world team and developing WGC skills. We also recommend some element of US team input in selection.
3. IGC Issues. The US team should work with our IGC delegate to change IGC rules, in areas that both improve world contests and also incidentally help the US team. Scoring formulas, AAT guidance, and IGC ranking calculation and use for pilot selection are three important areas.
4. US contests. Our ability to influence US contests is limited, but not zero. US contests can be made to be better preparation for WGC events, developers of pilot skills useful at WGC events, and measurements of pilot skill for team selection. We recommend larger classes, combining related classes by handicap, and encouragement of super-regionals that will count towards team selection.
The motivation, analysis, and specific recommendations follow.
1. Team Training, Coaching and infrastructure
Many successful countries have developed a much deeper and more effective soaring infrastructure in the last few decades. UK, France, Germany, Italy are obvious leaders here. In our view, the most important “new and different” investment we can make is to bolster underlying team infrastructure.
· Team development should be a priority for team resources, even at the cost of lower support for pilot expenses at WGC. The needed items are 1) Coaching, 2) Team Training and 3) “Bench” pilot development
Here we summarize some of the most important concepts that have emerged in this area.
A. Coach
In no sport would anyone dream of competing at the international level with zero coaching, ever. Yet the vast majority of the US team has never flown cross country with an experienced pilot in a coaching role, either two seat (ideal) or even coordinated cross country flight. The vast majority of team pilots have never even had a formal conversation with another pilot in a coaching role!
A coach would fill several important roles:
1. Pilot coach, helping individual pilots to develop general ability as well as the skills and knowledge to handle tactics at WGC events.
2.Competitive captain – an organizer of the team camp, and organizing the competitive (rather than organizational, procedural, and fund-raising) parts of the US team WGC effort.
In addition to a “head coach,” “senior pilots” would be useful. For example, if we could get DJ, KS, DB, etc. flying with experienced pilots in two-seaters rather than with beginners, we could leverage their experience a great deal.
Coaches need to be very familiar with WGC rules, tactics, and have recent success in the Worlds, or recent coaching experience with successful teams.
It would be useful to import a coach from Europe at least for a few years. A Brit (G Dale or Andy Davis?) with experience in their extensive team training program would be best of all. We are importing a whole team-development structure as much as hints for individual pilots.
B. Team camp.
WGC flying and tactics are quite different from those at US contests. Successful pilots from other countries have had lengthy experience at events (WGC, Eurpoeans, Euro nationals) that feature this flying style, rules, and tactics. Almost all US team pilots are flying a their first such event. The US rules committee is unlikely to switch to IGC rules or take radical measures so that US nationals will be a better training experience for team pilots.
Therefore, a team training camp is critically required. It will help to prepare the current team members for effective participation in WGC. More importantly, it will give the “bench” of team aspirants much more practice with WGC style flying. It will also help to develop our support infrastructure of ground, team captains, crew, etc.
The team contest/camp should be run on IGC rules, in particular allowing team flying, following the task guidance of IGC contests (half assigned, half area, long tasks), allowing ground support and developing ground support technique. It combines a scored contest with extensive coaching, debriefing, etc.
To happen, this idea needs a US Team procedural change:
· Attendance at the team camp must count for team selection.
Naturally, pilots already selected for the team should show up at the camp. However, the goal here is to attract lots of pilots, to help develop the “bench.” Many pilots fly two different nationals per year in order to maximize their chances of getting on the team. They won’t attend an extra camp. In general, pilots will not attend a camp if it reduces their chances of getting on the team.
We might simply require attendance, say once every other year: to be on the team for x, you must have attended team camp in x-1 or x-2. Better, showing up can count in the team selection formula. We could add 0.02 to each pilot’s ranking number for each camp attendance.
Selection across classes (below) may help turnout at the team camp. If your 15 meter performance can help you to qualify for the 18 m worlds, 15m nationals and team camp can be a more attractive option than 15m and 18m but no team camp.
We considered using the results of the team “contest” for selection. It’s a natural idea, since what is a better measure than how you do in a real WGC environment. However, we think that the “coaching” aspect makes it impractical to use the team camp contest results to count for team selection points. We will want pilots to try things that competitive pressures would otherwise prevent, try different gliders, or take turns in two seat gliders. We also want pilots to contribute generously of time, helping newer pilots, and by contributing ideas. This joint effort will be quashed if pilots are fighting hard for the team placing.
Some more thoughts/considerations:
1. The team camp needs to be fairly large, with at least 25 gliders flying together. Gaggling tactics are different with larger number of gliders. To this end, classes will have to be mixed with handicaps. That’s less realistic in the race, but more gliders is a more important goal than exact performance matches.
2. Matching to the next worlds terrain is a potential consideration and will be advantageous if possible. However, a reasonable number of participants and the chance to practice WGC tactics are also important considerations. We are developing a bench of pilots, team infrastructure, and a pool of knowledge for a two-decade effort in addition to preparing a few pilots for one specific event.
3. The use of 2 seat gliders would be a key part of the camp. Coach/pilot; senior pilot/new pilot; or just teammates comparing styles could help a lot. Pilots could spend 1-2 days in the 2 seat, the rest of the time in single-seat gliders. We should work to arrange single seat gliders for team members from far away. (Trade for a week at another date might work.)
4. Cost. The camp includes current team members, the “bench” of pilots who have ambitions to be on the team, plus others who want to learn. It’s open to all, though priority goes on the basis of ranking. The event can be funded by a substantial entry fee to those not on the team. They get coaching and learning not available elsewhere, and worth a considerable amount.
5. Organization is key. Emphasis needs to focus on flying technique, task strategies, team member mutual understanding, relationship building and team flying. Coach rating, feedback, performance evaluation is essential. This is not just a flying party.
6. We’re also training ground support. “Team captains” are a crucial part of this endeavor. It’s not just the pilots who need practice at worlds procedures. We should encourage protests so we all get good at them!
3. Team Selection issues
1. Current state
Do we need to say that our team selection formula is broken? We note two facts that jump out of the current selection lists in the Appendix.
A. Few pilots go twice.
The perception that “the same guys go all the time” is not true. See Appendix 2 which lists the US WGC pilots. Of US team pilots who went to WGC in 2000-2010, and excluding the world class, 32 went to 1 WGC in the 1990-2010 period, 9 went to 2 WGC, 3 went to 4 WGC, 4 went to 3 WGC, 1 went to 6 (Ittner) and 1 went to 8 (Striedeck).
In fact, then, the majority of our US team members go to exactly one WGC, and the overwhelming majority go to 1 or 2. Even among those who go more than once, going to consecutive worlds is rare – being on one WGC dramatically lowers your chances of being selected for the next one.
We all see that developing skill in the WGC environment is key to success. Winning pilots from other countries have been to 10 or more Worlds, or events with very similar tactics and rules (Europeans, etc.) Our pilots don’t get the chance to do this. Furthermore, what each one learns is lost to the next one.
It has become (with a few exceptions) a rotating door for one-time team members, not a well developed coherent team effort.
Additionally, few team captains go twice also, so that often both pilots and captains are at their first event.
B. The Bench is Thin.
Appendix 1 lists the current team standings. It is impressive how thin the list is vertically, and especially impressive how many holes there are horizontally. Almost no pilots fly in the same class 2 or 3 years in a row to qualify for the team. The number of pilots above the line and who fly regularly in any class is very small. Clearly, the vast majority of pilots, even pilots who on occasion do very well, are not pursuing team participation at all.
2. Team selection by class.
Team selection by class is no longer working. Some classes are inherently small. Many talented pilots are not following “their” class consistently, and hence the horizontal holes in the team standings of Appendix 1, and the very small numbers who even qualify for the team.
Getting on the team is a low-probability event, so most pilots, even those who make good team material, are not ready to make substantial sacrifices in the quest for team qualification. We may say we want people to “show commitment” by taking an extra 10 days to drive across the country, but they don’t do it, and we end up with a smaller pool. Selection is coming from a small group of “specialists,” willing to drive or pay to have their gliders driven across country to follow one class, or to try their luck at multiple classes.
Why, objectively, should performance in one class count zero towards selection in another class? Why should doing well in (say) 15m nationals not count at all towards (say) 18m selection? Given how close many classes are now, it is easier to take a good racer and polish up his skills in a slightly different glider than it is to take a pilot with extensive experience in one class and turn him in to a good racer. As we add 20m and 13.5m classes, we simply will not be able to select pilots based only on one class results.
Many countries already select across classes. Countries that follow rules increasingly pick pilots for the worlds by going down the IGC ranking list. Those countries that select by team decision rather than formula naturally use information in one class to pick pilots for another.
As a principle, ranking and team selection should be based on recent average performance not “best of” performance. Ageing contest results and rating per the IGC method will be helpful here.
3. Recommendations:
The US team selection procedure needs to be overhauled.
· We need to focus on sending the best pilots, period. Everything else follows from this.
· Given that pilots jump across classes, we need to use information from a pilot’s performance while flying in all classes to select the pilot for each class. We also need to pay some attention to poor performance as well as good outcomes.
· We need to stabilize selection, so that pilot selection is based more on consistently demonstrated performance and less on attendance in the appropriate class.
· Pilot development at team camps must be recognized.
· The US team should add some component of team discretion in pilot selection. A formula is not sufficient to pick the best pilots or the best team for a given event.
We recognize that discretion is a tricky issue. The formula insulates the team from controversy and politics. But the formula cannot pick the best pilots. If we want to pick the best pilots, some fair minded discretion around an up-front selection policy will be necessary. We suggest numerous improvements to the formula component of team selection:
4. Suggestions for the rule component of pilot selection:
We need to develop a pilot ranking scheme similar to the IGC model, but adapted to US contests. Contests with more pilots, better pilots, and longer contests count more. Then, pilots are selected and matched to classes by going down the ranking list. Some of the options we have discussed are as follows – we think they form the backbone of a workable system, though of course considerable work and peer review needs to go into a final proposal.
Option 1: We fill classes purely by going down the list, matching pilots to classes in turn.
Option 2: We give more weight to performance in “nearby” classes. For example, for 15m selection, performance in standard and 18 might be downweighted by say 0.98. Open class might have a more severe downweighting of performance in other classes, to reflect the special nature of flying those beasts. Currently, we are giving weight zero to all classes but the one in question. Somewhere between zero and one is optimal. This is a better measure, but more complex.
Option 3: We give more weight to class AND site type where rating points have been earned – this would allow us to consider the suitability of experience and performance at the type of site required for the upcoming WGC.
The current ranking scheme is useless for differentiating pilot performance at the top level. All nationals get 100, no matter how small or who shows up, all regionals get 92 no matter how large and good pilots show up. The unified ranking scheme will weight all contests by how much information they provide about skill. More difficult contests (better pilots) count more. Longer contests count more.
5. Weight of WGC and PWC, stability
Going to WGC or PWC (or Europeans) is a disaster for one’s selection chances for subsequent teams.
The IGC scoring formula means points are worth roughly half what they are in the US; a performance that is 950 points in the US gets 900 points in IGC rules. And of course the pilots at WGC are better, so the same pilot will receive a smaller fraction of the winner’s score.
The results in Appendix 1 bear this view out. Pilots receiving 0.96-1.00 in US nationals are receiving much much lower results in worlds. We don’t all have bad luck, nor do skills disappear! In no case – not one – does a pilot’s WGC 10 score count towards his ranking for WGC2012. If we were to select now, the only pilots who would go to both 10 and 12 are piltos who also flew a US nationals in 2010, and are selected on that basis.
For this reason, we saw a number of pilots sit out the WGC 2010 to get a better shot at Uvalde. This feature also leads to artificial turnover in the team, rather than keeping together an experienced team.
Recommendation:
· At a minimum, contests scored on IGC rules should be weighted by half the difference to winner’s score, to compensate for the multiplication by two in the IGC scoring formula. For example, 900 points in a IGC contest should be weighted like 950 points in a US contest.
· WGC or PWC or highly ranked International contests (such as European Nationals) should receive greater weight. We want pilots to intentionally go to these events to raise their chances of team selection, not to shy away from them to preserve their chances.
6. Club class
· The goal should be “send best pilots” so we endorse the UST’s decision to end the ban on previous WGC pilots in club class.
· Rather than pick club pilots only from those who fly club class gliders, we endorse the opposite direction – pick club, standard, 15, and 18m pilots from a broader pool, as above, with some weighting for the class of specialization. Send the best pilots. Discus/ASW24 and Ventus/ASW20 are now in club class, and every competitive pilot in the US has spent a lot of time in one of these gliders!
7. Team flying support
There is a deep question whether the US team should simply pick the best individual pilots, or invest deeply in team flying, and therefore pick the best two-pilot teams.
If we do decide to invest substantially in team flying, that changes many aspects of our team management, including selection. Picking by formula does not allow us to reward team skills or to reward pilots who sacrifice individual performance for a team effort. . Team committee over-ride may be required for those pilots who show a repeated refusal or inability to perform basic team flying. If we’re serious about team flying, we want to select teams that have practiced together, not individuals.
Our view is that we should not follow this course. If we develop a deeper base of pilots with basic team flying skills, and the US team committee (including coaches) has some discretion to favor pilots who won’t be team disasters (and disasters in other respects), we will get adequate team flying without reorienting the entire program. To some extent, it reflects our view that the advantages of close pair flying have been a bit overblown.
4. IGC issues
Several problems we face relate to IGC issues, in particular rules and rankings. The US team needs to coordinate closely with the IGC delegate on these issues. Many of our troubles come down to differences between the US system and the world system. The US is not likely to change so we need to deal with this discrepancy in our training camps and work to address workable improvements to the worlds system with the IGC.
1. Rules Issues
The main difference between world and US rules, which drives much of the difference in tactics, is the difference in scoring formulas. The IGC is aware of the pathologies in their scoring formulas, to wit:
A. Bruno Gatutenbrink’s speech in the 1980s eloquently explained how the speed/distance points and day devaluation meant everybody sticks with the gaggle. The “lone wolf” who starts first and is the only one to finish gets little; the lone wolf who is run over by the gaggle is crushed. The pilot who plays start gate roulette for two hours and lands out with the gaggle loses little.
B. The IGC is now keenly aware that mass gaggling is a big safety issue.
C. It can be advantageous for a pilot to orbit and not finish; so that more pilots cross the 66% barrier (Sweden).
An effort to adopt scoring formulas that gave more advantage to the “lone wolf” would put less emphasis on the start gate roulette, gaggling and mass landout feature of WGC soaring. Changing this feature of the rules is entirely to the benefit of world competitions. Incidentally, it will help US pilots less familiar with the tactics these rules produce.
The AAT/AT mix also produces more gaggling, which is widely recognized to be dangerous and unsavory.
Hence, our recommendation:
· The US Team should work with our IGC delegate to identify workable solutions to fixing the pathologies of IGC scoring formulas. The US should also push for greater use of the AAT in IGC task guidance.
2. IGC ranking issues.
The IGC is likely to install Slot 2 pilot participation filtering process based on pilot IGC ranking. The IGC ranking system is poorly designed for US pilots/contests. “European” contests draw from the same size and pool as our “nationals” but are much higher ranked. Thus, Euro pilot rankings are higher and more compressed. US pilot rankings are dropping. We may soon end up with our second pilot excluded from oversubscribed WGC contests.
There are several options to fix this. We could adapt our system to produce fairer (better) IGC rankings. Nationals should be “continental” championships in rule, which they are in fact. The IGC ranking system wasn’t really designed to handle a separate pilot population. The easiest solution would be our recommendation
· The US team should work with the US IGC delegate to recognize US nationals as the equivalent of “continental” championships in the IGC ranking formula, on the basis of size of pilot pool, without the NAA , cost and complexity that current “continental” championships designation causes.
5 . US Contest Standards, Structure and Rating
The US Rules committee is not likely to make big changes to accommodate team needs. Their main focus is on participation, not on team training. However, we can ask! A few realistic suggestions follow
1. Task guidance to suggest more AST/Long MAT. Pilots like it. The task guidance is pretty foggy anyway.
2. Combine small classes for bigger contests.
This will give much better contest ratings and consequent pilot ratings. Tactics in 8 glider contests are very different from tactics in 50 glider contests, so larger contests give much better training and practice. Larger contests also allow a better comparison of pilots across typical class divisions, and let us see more clearly who the best pilots are. Yes, handicaps are distasteful, but 7 nationals with 8 pilots each are much poorer training ground for US pilots than a smaller number of larger, handicapped, events.
3. Encourage ‘Super-Regionals’
These contests, with equivalent contest rating and lower travel impediments than Nationals, will allow pilots to develop their skills, pilot ranking and large-contest experience without cross continental travel requirements. They will prove (and have done so in a few examples like Parowan) very popular.
We hold the key however. Super–regionals will become more popular once super-regional performance counts for team selection.
7. Concluding Comments
The US team (overall) is becoming less competitive on the international stage due to the lack of pilot preparation, training, and experience.
Our proposals are our best summary of the practical steps we and others who have considered this issue have come up with to address this issue. They are focused on increasing pilot skills, especially at the quite different style of flying necessary at WGC; deepening the bench of skilled pilots who are working towards the team and contributing to the effort; selecting the most skilled pilots; and institutionalizing and passing on the knowledge and skill so gained.
We have not mentioned funding, but one can also hope that the creation of a larger and more committed pilot community, together with a visible national effort, can improve the fundraising situation as well.
Together, these steps should dramatically improve our international and domestic competitiveness.
Our last recommendation is a time table. We suggest that work commence immediately on implementing these proposals and that the US team should set a goal of having a workable pilot ranking method, ranking based team selection scheme, and supportive changes in contest and training infrastructure clearly identified for the 2012 soaring season.
