There is a tendency for us to put dehydration into an all or nothing
category. We say things like, "Yeah, he was dehydrated and crashed,
remember to drink more water, next time". Dehydration comes in degrees
from slightly dehydrated, all the way up to loss of consciousness. By
the 10th day of a Nationals, we are all tired, many of us are
frustrated, discouraged and I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't all a
little dehydrated. A pilot that is slightly dehydrated is functioning
pretty well, he just isn't at the top of his form, isn't making real
good decisions, doesn't pick up on things right away. A mildly
dehydrated pilot is a pilot headed for trouble, he may be losing his
situational awareness, doesn't foresee problems, can't make split
second decisions. Many land-outs can be attributed to poor decisions as
to where to find that saving thermal, dehydrated?

So, what is the best way to recover 50 tired, frustrated, possibly
dehydrated pilots? Do we ask them to make the split second decisions
necessary to do the hi-speed, low altitude finish, OR do we allow them
to finish the race at 500 feet and a mile out? I would suggest the
later is clearly the safest way to conduct our races.
Managers and CD's; There IS a safer way.
JJ Sinclair

A man on a *serious* safety crusade should make *serious* arguments!
But here's an answer to the laughable argument raised by this thread:

Thanks for suggesting still more unintended hazards of the dreaded
finish cylinder!!! (You're up Chris.)

When it comes to safe landings by pilots in a compromised mental state,
who, unfortunately, are likely to shut down even more mental systems
immediately after finishing, which maneuver has a better chance of
completion on autopilot: a routine, adrenaline enhanced, 90 second
follow the leader hop from low pass to landing? Or a ten minute game
of blind man's bluff after a cylinder pullup to 1500 ft?

Should we cancel just day 10 or does safety demand even shorter
contests to address the dehydration issue?

Should we decide which day to close the gate and open the cylinder
based on daily pilot weigh ins?

After a cylinder finish for points, low passes for show are safe,
right? It's only those low passes for points that cause trouble.

Jonathan Gere

wrote:

<snip>

> So, what is the best way to recover 50 tired, frustrated, possibly
> dehydrated pilots? Do we ask them to make the split second decisions
> necessary to do the hi-speed, low altitude finish, OR do we allow
them
> to finish the race at 500 feet and a mile out? I would suggest the
> later is clearly the safest way to conduct our races.
> Managers and CD's; There IS a safer way.
> JJ Sinclair

Smile.

OC

There's water in beer, right?

wrote:
> A man on a *serious* safety crusade should make *serious* arguments!
> But here's an answer to the laughable argument raised by this thread:

I have given you 3 accidents where dehydration was a factor. I doubt
these pilots think dehidration is laughable.


> Thanks for suggesting still more unintended hazards of the dreaded
> finish cylinder!!! (You're up Chris.)

I think you mean the dreaded finish line, don't you? I'm advocating the
dreaded finish cylinder.


> When it comes to safe landings by pilots in a compromised mental
state,
> who, unfortunately, are likely to shut down even more mental systems
> immediately after finishing, which maneuver has a better chance of
> completion on autopilot: a routine, adrenaline enhanced, 90 second
> follow the leader hop from low pass to landing?

I have given you a doctors opinion (NT) that the pull-up may be enough
to shut down the dehydrated mind. So, I think we can avoid the
shut-down mind situation by using the finish cylinder where a pull-up
isn't required.

Or a ten minute game
> of blind man's bluff after a cylinder pullup to 1500 ft?

Pull-up is not necessary at the finish cylinder, so why do it?

>
> Should we cancel just day 10 or does safety demand even shorter
> contests to address the dehydration issue?

No, we should address the dehydration issue by using a finish cylinder
that puts pilots under less stress at the end of every contest day.


> Should we decide which day to close the gate and open the cylinder
> based on daily pilot weigh ins?

Weren't you the one that wanted me to make *serious* arguments?

> After a cylinder finish for points, low passes for show are safe,
> right?

No, If a pilot made a low pass when the finish cylinder was in use, I
would consider that unsafe flying and probably give him an unsafe
flying penalty (if I was CD'ing the contest)

JJ Sinclair

On 3/27/05 7:34 PM, in article
. com,
" > wrote:

> Pull-up is not necessary at the finish cylinder, so why do it?

OK, I've lurked long enough. I'll probably be sorry, but....
Why not? Aren't we trying to puncture the edge of the cylinder very near its
bottom at maximum speed? Now, an instant later, we find ourselves 499' AGL
at redline less than a mile from the airport. Seems to me we sort of have to
pull up even a teensie bit to get slowed down and sorted out and into the
pattern.

Some math in prior posts points out that the length of the arc of the
cylinder we are trying to reach (on an AST at least) is even shorter than
the 1km long finish line. For me at least, all the cylinder does in this
case is move the bottom of the high speed pass up 450'. Maybe that's better
or safer, I'm not sure; it's certainly not obvious to me.

Additionally, the rules state that the 4 mile radio call for a finish is 4
miles from the finish point, the cylinder center. So with a 2mi radius
finish cylinder, radio calls come about a minute before the finish. With a
finish line, the 4 mile radio call gives 2 minutes of warning. I'd kinda
like as much warning as possible about who's nearby.

--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom <--fix this before responding

At 15:00 28 March 2005, Bob Greenblatt wrote:
>Additionally, the rules state that the 4 mile radio
>call for a finish is 4
>miles from the finish point, the cylinder center.

Oops, I read that one wrong - I've been calling in
too early.

9B

Don't let them drink anything but water and sports drinks during the
contest!

A rule of thumb I've heard is that for each beer one consumes, one must
consume an equal amount of water just to break even - that is, be just
as dehydrated as when that beer was started.

Now this should get some folks in a tizzy!

-Tom

Sure, Bob, one would normally exchange speed for a
little extra altitude, but nothing like the 2G climb
required after finishing at 50 feet. If anywhere near
the magic 500 foot mark, I pull the nose up slightly
and just let the speed bleed of as I fly the remaining
mile to the airport. Must be sure to get a couple of
hits from the GPS, inside the cylinder. The near-miss
at this years Seniors should be a wake-up call to all
of us. Watch those pull-ups. Don't do them if you don't
have to.
JJ

At 15:00 28 March 2005, Bob Greenblatt wrote:
>On 3/27/05 7:34 PM, in article
. com,
' wrote:
>
>> Pull-up is not necessary at the finish cylinder, so
>>why do it?
>
>OK, I've lurked long enough. I'll probably be sorry,
>but....
>Why not? Aren't we trying to puncture the edge of the
>cylinder very near its
>bottom at maximum speed? Now, an instant later, we
>find ourselves 499' AGL
>at redline less than a mile from the airport. Seems
>to me we sort of have to
>pull up even a teensie bit to get slowed down and sorted
>out and into the
>pattern.
>
>Some math in prior posts points out that the length
>of the arc of the
>cylinder we are trying to reach (on an AST at least)
>is even shorter than
>the 1km long finish line. For me at least, all the
>cylinder does in this
>case is move the bottom of the high speed pass up 450'.
>Maybe that's better
>or safer, I'm not sure; it's certainly not obvious
>to me.
>
>Additionally, the rules state that the 4 mile radio
>call for a finish is 4
>miles from the finish point, the cylinder center. So
>with a 2mi radius
>finish cylinder, radio calls come about a minute before
>the finish. With a
>finish line, the 4 mile radio call gives 2 minutes
>of warning. I'd kinda
>like as much warning as possible about who's nearby.
>
>--
>Bob
>bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom <--fix this before responding
>
>
>

Jonathan,

Furstrating, huh?

JJ clearly prefers inductive reasoning. Must be from Missouri. We're
spouting syllogisms and JJ, whether he recognizes it or not, is basing
his reasoning on a series of hasty generalizations. In fact, JJ has
supported his argument with just about every logical fallacy common to
induction. This is very wise on JJ's part, as his ends (safety) justify
the means (inaccuracy) and absolve him of any errors since his heart is
in the right place. (I know, that sounds flip, and it is: I mean it
both as a compliment and complaint.) So, why shouldn't he take
advantage of those methods so commonly employed by politicians and
marketers to circumvent discernment?

As I've said before, some people can walk upright on a fallen tree
bridging a chasm. Others must get down on all fours and shinny across,
nearly paralyzed by fear of falling. And guess who's more likely to
fall...

Three monkeys. No one will see the near misses at the cylinder wall, so
they won't get discussed. Just like the near misses in thermals and at
turnpoints don't get much discussion, far from the gaze of the peanut
gallery. The finish cylinder is a tool. It has its applications. But a
cure all it isn't.

JJ, I would suggest that maintaining or slowly bleeding speed to the IP
creates exactly the same situation you've described as unacceptable in
the finish gate, except that rather than being the exception, it will
become the rule. Gliders finishing from all points on the compass,
proceeding at high speed to the pattern IP, with head on traffic
exponentially more common and pilot intent more random. We will manage
it, just like we manage the finish gate, until someone doesn't think
things through, or forgets to drink or eat or pee or exercise or use
the radio or switch glasses...

2g pull. That's what Reichmann recommends for thermal entry. That's
what I see most guys pull on course during dolphin flying. God, what
happens in that last 10-minute run for the finish? The only difference
I can discern is the length of the witness list! C'mon JJ, we do this
stuff all the time. Here in the East, we do it even closer to the
ground for hours at a time. We often fly hundreds of miles seldom
getting higher than 50 feet above the tree tops and manage to complete
180's at the end of the ridge with other gliders in front and behind.

I think you are over arguing your point. Tout the cylinder for its
virtues. Spend some time wrapping some regulation of traffic into the
cylinder formula. And help make the line a safer environment. It's not
going to go away quite yet, despite your best efforts. So how do we
improve safety at the line? Instead of dismissing ideas as irrelevant,
let's discuss them.

Bob Greenblatt wrote:
Aren't we trying to puncture the edge of the cylinder very near its
> bottom at maximum speed?

Got to thinking about your question, Bob and actually we shouldn't try
to hit the edge of the cylinder at red-line. Why? Because our
sailplanes are very inafficient at red-line, in fact they start coming
down like a stone at anything over 90 knots. We should climb the last
thermal to 500 over home + a smidgen and then fly the indicated M/C to
the edge of the cylinder. You should get there between 60 and 90 knots,
depending on conditions on the glide. If you get there at red-line,
that means you climbed too high in the last thermal and it cost you
(time).

The finish line, on the other hand, requires a finish at red-line, so
that we can exchange our excess speed for pattern altitude. I'm even
tempted to say the cylinder is the most efficient way to fly the final
glide, but if I did, OC would just fly off in another snit, and I would
be forced to look up all those big words, again...............
:>) JJ

OC, You never did answer my question, "How many contests have you flown
using the finish cylinder?"
Your skepticism leads me to believe you havent flown that many. I know
you flew it at Montague, anywhere else? How about giving it a fair try
before condeming it?
JJ

Optimum is the same for either finish. Most of us just don't have the
guts to cut it that close with a line finish.

With a high cylinder finish, you can cut it close. You're risking points
if you end up a bit lower than you hoped. But your margin for momma and
the kids is built in to the optimum answer. Its then more a contest of
skill than nerve, at least for the final glide.

Since most pilots will try to fly efficiently, the range of speeds at
the cylinder is reduced, and lowered compared to the gate. Makes for a
nice orderly follow the leader to land, with a tad more time after the
race is over to sort it out.

That can degenerate when everyone finishes way too high and hot or just
squeaking in a rolling finish, but it does the same thing with a gate.

With a line everyone shoots for the sweet end of the line. There always
is one. With a cylinder, finishers will naturally be much more spread
out. Maneuvering will be less predictable, but also more uniformly
gentle. Given the blind spots in all our gliders, and the tendency to
fixate on the targets you see and know about, we really count on the big
sky theory more than we like to admit. A little more natural spacing
makes the sky bigger.

But the cylinder is an instrument approach since it is completely
invisible, which has to pull some of your attention into the cockpit.
Cutting the edge of the gate is, too, since its really defined by GPS
coordinates, not a ground feature. Not very comforting for either finish
in traffic.

If you think either one is really safe, you're nuts. Both can be
executed successfully, but the margins flying that close to so many
other gliders and the ground are just not that big. I think the cylinder
is a bit less risky, but a lot less fun.

A perfect final glide to the edge of the cylinder at 75 kts is so
anti-climactic after an epic adventure out on course. Nothing compares
to the good old assigned task and no minimum height gate.

But I can change... If I have to... I guess.

-Dave Leonard
ZL




wrote:
> Bob Greenblatt wrote:
> Aren't we trying to puncture the edge of the cylinder very near its
>
>>bottom at maximum speed?
>
>
> Got to thinking about your question, Bob and actually we shouldn't try
> to hit the edge of the cylinder at red-line. Why? Because our
> sailplanes are very inafficient at red-line, in fact they start coming
> down like a stone at anything over 90 knots. We should climb the last
> thermal to 500 over home + a smidgen and then fly the indicated M/C to
> the edge of the cylinder. You should get there between 60 and 90 knots,
> depending on conditions on the glide. If you get there at red-line,
> that means you climbed too high in the last thermal and it cost you
> (time).
>
> The finish line, on the other hand, requires a finish at red-line, so
> that we can exchange our excess speed for pattern altitude. I'm even
> tempted to say the cylinder is the most efficient way to fly the final
> glide, but if I did, OC would just fly off in another snit, and I would
> be forced to look up all those big words, again...............
> :>) JJ
>

At 01:30 29 March 2005, wrote:
>Got to thinking about your question, Bob and actually
>we shouldn't try
>to hit the edge of the cylinder at red-line. Why? Because
>our
>sailplanes are very inafficient at red-line, in fact
>they start coming
>down like a stone at anything over 90 knots. We should
>climb the last
>thermal to 500 over home + a smidgen and then fly the
>indicated M/C to
>the edge of the cylinder.

I did an analysis of this and it would appear that
the minumum time solution is to dial in a finish altitude
equal to 500' minus the altitude you can gain in a
pullup from your McCready speed to minimum sink speed.
Just before the cylinder edge you pull up and hit the
bottom outside edge of the cylinder. Depending on your
McCready setting you will approach the edge of the
cylinder at somewhere between 0 feet (Mc = 6 or higher,
full ballast) and 350' (Mc = 2, dry). It's easy to
calculate that you save about 45 seconds over flying
the McCready speed to the cylinder at 500'.

Why is this? Because there is excess kinetic energy
that can be turned into altitude at all cruise speeds
(the higher the speed, the more excess energy - and
altitude). To optimize, you should not carry excess
energy through the cylinder but instead come in below
the cylinder floor and use the energy to make the minimum
altitude, in this case 500'.

Most of us carry some extra margin just in case of
unexpected sink. In this case you can wait until you're,
say, two miles from the edge of the cylinder, then
dive off even more excess energy in the last two miles.
Because you are flying off more excess energy in a
short distance, you pretty quickly get up to speeds
where you can be right on the deck and pull up to well
over 500'. In this case you are flying less efficiently,
so the time savings go down a bit, to 20-30 seconds
versus flying McCready speed to 500'.

I would add that I am not advocating that anyone do
this, since I don't want to be held responsible for
the consequences of this finishing technique. It's
only worth a handful of points per day, but then again
so is finishing at 50' versus 200-300' in a gate.

9B

JJ, I'm thinking back. Half a dozen sanctioned contests? We use the
cylinder at M-ASA for our Club tasks as well. You miss my point
though... It's not condemnation of the finish cylinder as a concept.
Whatever the rules, I'll follow them and use them to my best advantage.
It's an assessment of the forethought that has been applied to its
implementation. Many of the concerns you aptly apply to the finish line
can be transferred to the finish cylinder. While it answers some
concerns, it ignores others and raises still more. In my opinion, the
finish gate is most dangerous when sailplanes of different performances
and speed ranges are finishing together. This is why the cylinder is an
appropriate solution for the sports class. Under such circumstances,
there can be significant differences in the patterns pilots must fly
after the finish. And the cylinder raises greatest concerns during TATs
and ASTs, especially in weak or blue conditions, when gaggling is most
likely.

I've talked about the heads down aspect of the cylinder, the de facto
reduction of finish line width during ASTs, the reduced separation of
high and low speed traffic and the variables we're likely to encounter
once we enter the cylinder and proceed to the IP.

I keep asking for some regulation at the cylinder that will make it
easier for me to anticipate likely hazards. And the constant response
is density. I've flown the 1-mile "turn cylinder" for several seasons
now, and I've come to the conclusion that it does little to alleviate
congestion. There is some improvement under certain conditions, but by
and large there's typcally only one "best" way to round the turnpoint
at any given moment, and that's where sailplanes operate.

It comes down to this: I understand the finish gate. I know its hazards
and can anticipate them. The cylinder presents unaddressed variables.
And unlike some pilots, I prefer the advantages of going into a
hazardous environment with as much knowledge as I can. Right now I am
admitting my ignorance of how best to manage the cylinder. And I'm not
taking much confidence in the recommendations of those who purport to
understand its dynamics.

Racing is not inherently safe. And experience leaves me dubious about
rules changes that are predicated on improving the inherent safety of
any aspect of the sport. The density argument rings untrue. There is
clearly some value in elimination of head on traffic, but this can be
addressed in other ways as well, many of which have been offered but
not thoroughly explored because the cylinder is assumed to trump them
all.

You have to give me some credit here. I'm not addressing this as a
blunt-skull only. Sports Class... use the cylinder. MAT... the cylinder
might be appropriate... for the CD and his advisors to decide. Single
class of experienced pilots flying AST or TAT (Nationals), the line
serves very well. Perhaps even better. In either case, the safety of
cylinder versus line is determined solely by the knowledge and
practices of its users. I'd like to be knowledgable in both. If nothing
else, you've turned me pragmatist, JJ. The line serves me fine, but I
know I'll be presented with the cylinder more and more. So let's get on
with the business of putting some regulation on it.

wrote:
> OC, You never did answer my question, "How many contests have you
flown
> using the finish cylinder?"
> Your skepticism leads me to believe you havent flown that many. I
know
> you flew it at Montague, anywhere else? How about giving it a fair
try
> before condeming it?
> JJ

Morning Andy,
On the last day of the 18 meter nats at Montague, a few years back, the
fire base was activated and the County required us to arrive at or
above 1000 feet. Several pilots came to me and said, "If you don't
raise the finish cylinder to 1000 feet, some guys will drive hard and
then call a rolling finish, we need a big penalty for that". So, I
raised the 1 mile cylinder to 1000 feet and announced a 10 minute
penalty for making a rolling finish. Two top pilots did exactly what
wou described and BOTH missed the cylinder! They got their rolling
finish time + 10 minutes. There was ****ing & moaning & nashing of
teeth the like of which the world has seldom seen, complete with
threats of taking their protest to a higher power.

I don't recommend the procedure you described for several reasons, but
the big one I see is; It brings back the pull-up. I would be in favor
of a rule prohibiting hard pull-ups in the cylinder. Easy to enforce,
we have your GPS trace.
JJ

> I did an analysis of this and it would appear that
> the minumum time solution is to dial in a finish altitude
> equal to 500' minus the altitude you can gain in a
> pullup from your McCready speed to minimum sink speed.
> Just before the cylinder edge you pull up and hit the
> bottom outside edge of the cylinder. Depending on your
> McCready setting you will approach the edge of the
> cylinder at somewhere between 0 feet (Mc = 6 or higher,
> full ballast) and 350' (Mc = 2, dry). It's easy to
> calculate that you save about 45 seconds over flying
> the McCready speed to the cylinder at 500'.

> I don't recommend the procedure you described for several reasons,
but
> the big one I see is; It brings back the pull-up. I would be in favor
> of a rule prohibiting hard pull-ups in the cylinder. Easy to enforce,
> we have your GPS trace.
> JJ

But the rules DO recommend the procedure. It's the fastest way to
finish !

For any rule prohibiting hard pull-ups, how will the pilot know in
the cockpit, how hard can he pull up without violating the rule ?
Will g-meters be required equipment ?

I personnally have no fears of hard pullups, as long as I don't have to
do
them below 1000 ft AGL.

Todd Smith
3S

Hi Todd,
The rule could say something like, no sudden increase in altitude at or
near the finish cylinder, not to exceed, say 300 feet. I'm sure our
clever scoring programmer could measure time vs. altitude in the
pull-up and flag the trace for penalty consideration.

> But the rules DO recommend the procedure. It's the fastest way to
> finish !
>
> For any rule prohibiting hard pull-ups, how will the pilot know in
> the cockpit, how hard can he pull up without violating the rule ?
> Will g-meters be required equipment ?
>
> I personnally have no fears of hard pullups, as long as I don't have
to
> do
> them below 1000 ft AGL.

Yes, but this is where the near mid-air occurred at this years Seniors.
Several posters have pointed out the same potential exists in the
cylinder as in the line, hence my recommendation to basically prohibit
the pull-up in or near rhe cylinder. It's the guy in your blind spot
that gets you (or you get him)
JJ
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S

wrote:

> I keep asking for some regulation at the cylinder that will make it
> easier for me to anticipate likely hazards. And the constant response
> is density. I've flown the 1-mile "turn cylinder" for several seasons
> now, and I've come to the conclusion that it does little to alleviate
> congestion.

Morning Chris,
I think the problems in traffic separation can be solved with good
radio procedures like those we have adopted at Montague. The County
insists we use 122.8 for T/O and landing, so we tell all finishers to
call on 123.3 at 10 miles out, get the winds to see which way we are
landing and then switch to 122.8. They are instructed to call 4 miles
from the center, then in the gate (1 mile on DME) with direction and
condition, ie, JJ....In the gate.......from the S/W............high.
The finisher has been listening for 10 miles and knows who's in front
of him and their condition (low man gets priority). I have done this in
a contest with 80 ships at Reese. Charlie had similar procedures in
place and I never had even the hint of a problem.
I take that back, at Montague we did have a guy with a bad radio that
landed against traffic, thankfully we have a 200 foot wide rudway and
both pilots stayed to the right. His radio problems were a continuing
thing and I felt he should have dealt with it. He should have known his
radio wasn't working when he got no reply and heard nobody talking. We
gave him a hand-held for the remainder of the contest.
JJ

Ah, much better. Now we're going in the right direction. Is there some
way we can raise these from site specific to general practice? And in
the process, refine them to address conceptual (versus reported)
problems with the cylinder. And then do the same sort of thing for the
line. Let's make them both as safe as possible, then measure their
relative worth under the variety of finish scenarios we see. Your
contests will use the cylinder exclusively. That's fine. Others will
prefer the line. Each will attract its adherents, but in the long run,
there's no reason they can't co-exist, especially if each in its own
way contributes to improvements in traffic management at the finish (I
won't say safety in this case, because being safe is largely dependent
on individual practice and compliance with accepted procedures).

The good news, JJ, is that you're at least partly right. Maybe all
right. ;-) Time will tell. And it needn't be based on casuality
figures... just pilot preference.

Cheers,

Chris OC

Here's the solution to the problem that someone might be tempted to
dive for the base of the finish cylinder and do a radical pull-up, as
well as the problem that someone might try to thermal at 300' to get up
to 500' and save himself the rolling-finish penalty:

There is a donut of airspace, from 1 mile radius to (say) 4 miles
radius, with top at 500 feet (or finish cylinder base, if higher). This
is forbidden airspace, marked in the sua file as such. One fix in that
airspace, and you've landed out. (Or, if you feel that's too much, it
gets you a 100 point penalty, plus any rolling finish penalty or time
addition.) Essentially, we create an airport located in a 1 mile radius
valley, surrounded by a plateu at 500 feet.

Now the optimum thing to do for a pilot who cares even zero about his
own safety is to fly about 90 kts (regular glide speed) to about the 2
mile radius and 501 feet, then let speed bleed off to the average speed
for the flight at the 1 mile mark. Of course, sensible people will
just fly 90 kts to the 550' 1 mile point, with trivial loss of points.

(It's not efficient to end up as slow as possible at the 1 mile mark.
To see why, imagine you could fly at 0 airspeed. Taking 10 minutes to
go the last 100 feet would not make sense. If you flew 60 mph average
for the flight, flying level at 59 mph slows you down, while flying
level at 61 mph increases your average speed. Thus, you want to cross
the line at the average speed for the flight, 60 mph in this case. 5-10
kts extra cost hundredths of a point.)

There is no incentive for low-altitude thermaling just outside the
cylinder. Once you're below 500 feet (or 1000, or whatever the top of
the donut) you landed out so you might as well glide home. (If it's 100
points plus the rolling finish penalty, you just got the rolling finish
penalty, so again you might as well stop screwing around and go land.)
If you're 5 miles out and you can't make it over the donut (about 1200
feet is the decision height here), you have every incentive to stop;
either thermal at a decent altitude or find a decent landing place.
It's just like not being able to cross the final ridge into the
airport.

There is no need for a rules change to do this. CDs may now designate
any airspace they want to as off limits. Just put the donut in the sua
file. Any CD or contest manager who wants to ensure really safe
finishes can put this into place now.

The donut can also be used with a conventional finish line. This will
ensure that pilots arrive at the airport with plenty of energy, or
already committed to rolling.

John Cochrane
BB

At 20:00 29 March 2005, Bb wrote:
>Here's the solution to the problem that someone might
>be tempted to
>dive for the base of the finish cylinder and do a radical
>pull-up, as
>well as the problem that someone might try to thermal
>at 300' to get up
>to 500' and save himself the rolling-finish penalty:
>
>There is a donut of airspace, from 1 mile radius to
>(say) 4 miles
>radius, with top at 500 feet

It's the Krispy Kreme finish!

It's appealing as a disincentive to cylinder antics
and has the additional virtue that it ensures adequate
energy for gate finishes since 500' gets most gliders
roughly to redline at 50' over the airport. Since the
main complaint about gate finishes is inadequate energy
for a pattern this basically forces a rolling finish
decision at 1 mile or more if you don't have the energy.

I'm assuming you don't get the penalty if you do a
rolling finish. I would also allow the CD some discretion
over penalties since 499' and 150 knots is not the
same as 499' at 40 knots.

Pretty interesting - I think this came up last year
didn't it?

9B

Or how about this for a solution. The start cylinder has a top, right?
It actually extends well beyond the boundary of the cylinder. If you
go above this top, you must come back below it and remain below it for
two minutes before you can get a start without incurring a penalty. We
all know the rule.

How about a similar, but inverted plane and system at the base of the
finish cylinder? One data point below the base of the finish cylinder,
and you cannot get a finish until you have been above it for two
minutes. Or, maybe make it five. Might as well go take your rolling
finish if you dip below it on final glide. It is much easier to apply
the same rule two different places than to try and come up with
something else, IMHO. Will certainly stop ballistic trajectories, but
not the level decel.

Don't get me wrong, John. I like donuts, but in the morning before the
Pilot's Meetings!

Steve Leonard
ZS

If we were to have 4 cylinders (only one of which would be in use any given
day), such that the cylinder's edge was more or less down the centerline of
the runway (one on each side); or perpendicular to the runway (one at each
end), then, other than altitude, the spectator appeal is about the same as
with a line.

(We ought to change the subject of this thread.)


--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom <--fix this before responding