Karl Streideck worte:

'Extending the 20:1 minimum slope out another 5 miles
will not give any advantage because the scoring formula
uses a speed of 60mph from the safety fix home, while
most gliders would actually be doing 40%-80% faster
than this. There is also the time 'penalty' incurred
due to the requirement to climb higher than necessary,
so it's a double whammy. The pilot has to 'tank
up' but then doesn't get to convert the extra energy
to speed.'

Well, I thought it was 200 feet per statute mile, which
is 25:1, not 20:1. But anyway...

Since all this is GPS controlled, why are we giving
distance credit, at 60 MPH, to the finish point on
a safety finish? Why not end the flight (in miles
and time for scoring purposes), when the pilot turns
around inside the safety finish zone? Even progress
at 60 MPH boosts the speed a bit on a 45 MPH day, but
it slows you down if it had been a smoker. I think
if you are ending the flight for scoring purposes,
it should end there. Not continue on at some arbitraty
speed.

And I have never understood why we seem to think it
is safe to go down to about 1000 feet AGL, 5 miles
out with a storm on the field, get a finish, then try
and turn around so we can get away. Ever tried to
climb out from below 1000 feet near a storm, and not
in the inflow to it?

All this really just illustrates a point. Every rule
will have a corner on it. And if you go right to that
corner, you can put yourself in an unsafe position.
My favorite example of this is those that complain
that the Cylinder Finish is unsafe because it has a
corner 500 feet up, and one or two miles from the center
of the field, depending on finish point location.
Hitting that point at zero airspeed is not much different
than crossing a finish line, going the wrong direction
for landing, at 50 feet and 70 or 80 knots. Both are
'OK' by the rules, but both show very poor judgement.


As KS said, at some point, we all have to realize that
our lives are more important than a few points. Maybe
we should all be required to have a picture of our
wife and or family on the panel, looking us straight
in they eyes. Maybe that could cut back on some of
the corner cutting? I remember hearing Eric Mozer
say that he hit a thermal very low one day in his ASH-25
at Hobbs. He decided not to try and work it, as his
Dad was in the back seat. He said if he had been alone,
he probably would have tried to take it. They landed
out safely. Families are good. Do everything you
can to stay a part of yours.

My Nickels worth.

Steve Leonard
ZS

"Steve Leonard" > wrote in message
...
> Karl Streideck worte:
>
> 'Extending the 20:1 minimum slope out another 5 miles
> will not give any advantage because the scoring formula
> uses a speed of 60mph from the safety fix home, while
> most gliders would actually be doing 40%-80% faster
> than this. There is also the time 'penalty' incurred
> due to the requirement to climb higher than necessary,
> so it's a double whammy. The pilot has to 'tank
> up' but then doesn't get to convert the extra energy
> to speed.'
>
> Well, I thought it was 200 feet per statute mile, which
> is 25:1, not 20:1. But anyway...

My math is flawed (again). It would be 5280/200 or something like 26+ to 1.
>
> Since all this is GPS controlled, why are we giving
> distance credit, at 60 MPH, to the finish point on
> a safety finish? Why not end the flight (in miles
> and time for scoring purposes), when the pilot turns
> around inside the safety finish zone? Even progress
> at 60 MPH boosts the speed a bit on a 45 MPH day, but
> it slows you down if it had been a smoker. I think
> if you are ending the flight for scoring purposes,
> it should end there. Not continue on at some arbitraty
> speed.

Ending the flight at the first point in the cone would be another good way
to do it. I remember working on this whilst on the rules committee and there
was a consensus that the extrapolated math should not convey an advantage in
speed. With the present system and the need to play it safe on the
parameters, pilots will climb well above a 26:1 glide slope outside the cone
to ensure they get into it at the five mile point.

As for the virtual speed used, 60 is conservative on even a 26:1 glide for
most gliders. A 45 mph cross country speed made good will always be followed
by a much faster average for the final glide portion.
>
> And I have never understood why we seem to think it
> is safe to go down to about 1000 feet AGL, 5 miles
> out with a storm on the field, get a finish, then try
> and turn around so we can get away. Ever tried to
> climb out from below 1000 feet near a storm, and not
> in the inflow to it?

There is no requirement to press down to 1000 agl and most pilots flying in
the vicinity of severe weather won't. Five miles seemed like an adequate
distance when the rule was made. Maybe it needs to be increased for a
situation where one edge of the storm is at the airport and the center is
along the final leg.
>
> All this really just illustrates a point. Every rule
> will have a corner on it. And if you go right to that
> corner, you can put yourself in an unsafe position.
> My favorite example of this is those that complain
> that the Cylinder Finish is unsafe because it has a
> corner 500 feet up, and one or two miles from the center
> of the field, depending on finish point location.
> Hitting that point at zero airspeed is not much different
> than crossing a finish line, going the wrong direction
> for landing, at 50 feet and 70 or 80 knots. Both are
> 'OK' by the rules, but both show very poor judgement.
>
>
> As KS said, at some point, we all have to realize that
> our lives are more important than a few points. Maybe
> we should all be required to have a picture of our
> wife and or family on the panel, looking us straight
> in they eyes.

My panel found itself with two blank holes a few years ago so I added
photos - one of us and one of doggie.


Maybe that could cut back on some of
> the corner cutting? I remember hearing Eric Mozer
> say that he hit a thermal very low one day in his ASH-25
> at Hobbs. He decided not to try and work it, as his
> Dad was in the back seat. He said if he had been alone,
> he probably would have tried to take it. They landed
> out safely. Families are good. Do everything you
> can to stay a part of yours.
>
> My Nickels worth.
>
> Steve Leonard
> ZS

KS
>
>
>
>

I think we should dispense with the complexity of the cone shaped base
for safety finishes at US contests.

I think that a safety finish should just be a cylinder finish always
with a fixed 2000 ft base (above start height). The CD should be free
to declare any distance to be the radius of the safety finish
cylinder. In this way the CD has freedom to set the distance based on
the dual considerations related to the size of the storm as well as
fairness considerations for a 2000 ft finish as compared to whatever
manner of finish is otherwise in use as well as the soaring conditions
for the day.

This makes a safety finish basically the same as a regular cylinder
finish. This will reduce the complexity of the rules, reduce the need
for endless discussion at pilots meeting and reduce cockpit analysis.
It is also easy to reprogram into existing computers.

The smidgeon of perceived fairness gain from using the cone just is
not worth it. If there is a storm brewing I would prefer that the
rules not motivate me to push close to the ground. In most cases
2000 ft will give me some reasonable options.

Steve Koerner (GW)
Mesa AZ

On Sep 14, 1:35 pm, Steve Koerner > wrote:
> I think we should dispense with the complexity of the cone shaped base
> for safety finishes at US contests.
>
> I think that a safety finish should just be a cylinder finish always
> with a fixed 2000 ft base (above start height). The CD should be free
> to declare any distance to be the radius of the safety finish
> cylinder. In this way the CD has freedom to set the distance based on
> the dual considerations related to the size of the storm as well as
> fairness considerations for a 2000 ft finish as compared to whatever
> manner of finish is otherwise in use as well as the soaring conditions
> for the day.
>
> This makes a safety finish basically the same as a regular cylinder
> finish. This will reduce the complexity of the rules, reduce the need
> for endless discussion at pilots meeting and reduce cockpit analysis.
> It is also easy to reprogram into existing computers.
>
> The smidgeon of perceived fairness gain from using the cone just is
> not worth it. If there is a storm brewing I would prefer that the
> rules not motivate me to push close to the ground. In most cases
> 2000 ft will give me some reasonable options.
>
> Steve Koerner (GW)
> Mesa AZ

Steve,

That's a great way to look at it; you simply extended the radius of
the finish cylinder. In fact, it makes the scoring program AND the
glide navigation program changes a non-event. Increase radius, change
minumum height, done.

Okay, so it's not that simple, as there is the issue of what to do
about those folks who came in BEFORE the safety finish was declared.
I'd be interested to look at the data to see how many guys are
actually below say 25:1 at 10 miles (yeah, there are some). One
possibility is to give the pilots who finished before the Safety
Finish was announced the most advantageous speed using either the
original finish or the Safety Finish (assuming they hit the cylinder
in the course of their normal finish).

In either case, I just can't see any percentages/rationale in making a
sloping cone which you can hit from the bottom side at 8 miles vs. 10
miles. Now I'm that much closer to the storm and that much lower (and
probably slower as I try to "nurse" the glide). It just encourages
the wrong behavior, especially for something prefaced with the word
"safety".

P3

Excellent point. Now there is no longer a need for a landing card
declaration regarding safety finish either. The computer detects
every variety of finish that you validly accomplished: Safety, Flying
and Rolling -- scores you for the best result.

Steve Koerner (GW)
Mesa AZ