Accident at Szeged WGC

[ppp1]

This looks very bad. Pilot ok, but the truck driver in critical
condition.

http://picasaweb.google.com/itb.panorama/WGC2010GliderCrashSzegedHungary#

[R. Schierbeek]

"ppp1" > wrote
> This looks very bad. Pilot ok, but the truck driver in critical condition.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/itb.panorama/WGC2010GliderCrashSzegedHungary#

Accident at Szeged WGC

A glider came in so low that it hit a truck or bus on the road that runs outside the airport fence. The glider then
cart-wheeled into the fence which is wire mesh between massive 10 ft high concrete posts with barbed wire on top.
Everything on the glider was broken - wings and fuselage, except the cockpit.

We later learned that the pilot apparently was not badly injured however the driver of the truck is in serious
condition.

[John Smith]

Am 30.07.10 16:46, schrieb R. Schierbeek:
> A glider came in so low that it hit a truck or bus on the road that runs
> outside the airport fence. The glider then cart-wheeled into the fence
> which is wire mesh between massive 10 ft high concrete posts with barbed
> wire on top. Everything on the glider was broken - wings and fuselage,
> except the cockpit.
>
> We later learned that the pilot apparently was not badly injured however
> the driver of the truck is in serious condition.

Note the priorities:

1. The Glider has been broken
2. The Pilot is ok.
3. Oh, yeah, the truck driver. I nearly forgot. He is seriously injured
and will possibly lose an eye.

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Jul 30, 7:46*am, "R. Schierbeek" > wrote:
> "ppp1" > wrote
>
> > This looks very bad. Pilot ok, but the truck driver in critical condition.
>
> >http://picasaweb.google.com/itb.panorama/WGC2010GliderCrashSzegedHung...
>
> Accident at Szeged WGC
>
> A glider came in so low that it hit a truck or bus on the road that runs outside the airport fence. The glider then
> cart-wheeled into the fence which is wire mesh between massive 10 ft high concrete posts with barbed wire on top.
> Everything on the glider was broken - wings and fuselage, except the cockpit.
>
> We later learned that the pilot apparently was not badly injured however the driver of the truck is in serious
> condition.

Hauntingly similar to the Hawker collision.

[Tony[_5_]]

> Hauntingly similar to the Hawker collision.

How so?

[Ramy]

On Jul 30, 8:51*am, Tony > wrote:
> > Hauntingly similar to the Hawker collision.
>
> How so?

This accident is anything but similar to any accident I ever heard
off...

Ramy

[[email protected]]

On Jul 30, 12:43*pm, Ramy > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 8:51*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > > Hauntingly similar to the Hawker collision.
>
> > How so?
>
> This accident is anything but similar to any accident I ever heard
> off...
>
> Ramy

I does have something in common with the fatal accident in the Jr
Worlds in the UK a few years ago.
That commonality is direct finishes flown over places where people ,
and in this case vehicles, are.
It's all fine till you don't have quite enough energy, or you go too
low, then it is a big time event quickly.
We can only hope the driver comes out OK.
Boring cylinder finishes anyone?
UH

[Bob Kuykendall]

On Jul 30, 8:37*am, John Smith > wrote:

Definitely not fun & games anymore.

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

>Boring cylinder finishes anyone?

Already being used at the WGC since today.

Best wishes for the truck driver
Andreas

Bye
Andreas

[Herb]

On Jul 30, 12:10*pm, Andreas Maurer > wrote:
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT),
> wrote:
>
> >Boring cylinder finishes anyone?
>
> Already being used at the WGC since today.
>
> Best wishes for the truck driver
> Andreas
>
> Bye
> Andreas

What a completely senseless and preventable accident. Go back and
look at the vicious comments that were made here when BB suggested all
line finishes should be abolished in favor of the 500' and 1 mile
cylinder. Mr. Larson's death should have been enough to quiet the
fans of low and fast. Gliders have no business flying close to the
ground, same for other aircraft. The organizers and the FAI contest
rule committee have a responsibility to protect bystanders and others,
they failed in their duty.
Herb, J7

[JJ Sinclair]

> Boring cylinder finishes anyone?
> UH

Boring (but safe) cylinder finishes!
I was rolling on the runway when another competitor did a low finish
right over me, even though the cylinder finish was in use at Parowan.
I thought he was trying to land in front of me for a second or two and
was ready to ground-loop out of his way, if
necessary................nope, just another hot-shot showing his
ignorance as he did his little macho-crotcho low pass and then pulled
up into a crowded pattern without a word over the radio!

Radio contact is no longer needed to get a good start or finish and
the most important use of the radio is to let each other know where we
are in relation to finishing and landing. Recommend the rules call for
a 4 mile call, finish and down-wind to XX radio calls.

I CD'd Air Sailing Sports Class last week and instructed all to call 4
miles, finish and down-wind to whatever and anyone below 500 feet
better be in the pattern or doing a rolling finish!

Hank, it is high time we get the unnecessary and unsafe line finish
out of US rules and instruct CD's to not allow any low finishes.
JJ (the outspoken trouble-maker)

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 30, 1:03*pm, Herb > wrote:

> What a completely senseless and preventable accident. *Go back and
> look at the vicious comments that were made here when BB suggested all
> line finishes should be abolished in favor of the 500' and 1 mile
> cylinder. *Mr. Larson's death should have been enough to quiet the
> fans of low and fast. *Gliders have no business flying close to the
> ground, same for other aircraft. *

You and JJ seem to be under the impression that the Szeged accident
resulted from a low altitude high speed approach. Reports from the
site indicate the glider, like some others finishing that day, was low
energy.

Do you have new information that conflicts with those reports?

If not, can you please explain how the finish type was a factor in the
accident.

Andy (GY)

[JJ Sinclair]

> You and JJ seem to be under the impression that the Szeged accident
> resulted from a low altitude high speed approach. *Reports from the
> site indicate the glider, like some others finishing that day, was low
> energy.
>
> Do you have new information that conflicts with those reports?
>
> If not, can you please explain how the finish type was a factor in the
> accident.
>
> Andy (GY)

Low energy becomes evident at the end of your finish. The guy who
can't make the 500'/1mile cylinder calls for a straight-in landing.
The guy that finds himself with low energy while trying to make a 50'
finish line eats the fence/ hits a truck!
JJ

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 30, 2:47*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:

> Low energy becomes evident at the end of your finish. The guy who
> can't make the 500'/1mile cylinder calls for a straight-in landing.
> The guy that finds himself with low energy while trying to make a 50'
> finish line eats the fence/ hits a truck!
> JJ

A low energy final glide should be evident long before reaching either
the finish cylinder or one mile from a finish line. If there is no
lift and a marginal glide to the airport the choice is to either land
out or try to get over the fence. The pilot who passed through the
finish cylinder at best L/D and 200 ft is in exactly the same
situation as the guy at best L/D and 200ft and a mile out going for a
line finish or a rolling finish. The finish type makes no difference
when there is insufficient energy to make the airport but the pilot
continues to try for the airport.

The argument that the finish cylinder would increase safety in this
scenario may be valid if the pilot has the option to stop and work
lift to get up to minimum finish altitude. It may also be true that
there is an increase in safety if pilot choses to landout after making
the cylinder finish. That requires landable areas between the
cylinder circumference and the airport.

As a result of the accident WGC has changed from a line finish to a
cylinder finish. The Friday task sheet defines the finish as cylinder
R=3.0 km with a 140M QNH min finish altitude. According to the
turnpoints database Szeged is at 80M. Unless my calculations are
wrong the required L/D from a valid finish to the airport is 50:1.

The same choce remains - try to clear the fence or landout. The
points penalty for landing out is gone though, and maybe that's enough
to make it safer. Let's hope so.


Andy

[Andreas Maurer]

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:50:47 -0700 (PDT), Andy >
wrote:


>A low energy final glide should be evident long before reaching either
>the finish cylinder or one mile from a finish line. If there is no
>lift and a marginal glide to the airport the choice is to either land
>out or try to get over the fence.

Sounds simple in theory, but seems to be harder in reality.

A typical accident report can be found here:
http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_005/nn_223970/DE/Publikationen/Untersuchungsberichte/2009/Bericht__09__3X043__Jantar3__Sdier,templateId=raw, property=publicationFile.pdf/Bericht_09_3X043_Jantar3_Sdier.pdf

Even for the non-German speaking readers of this newsgroup the
flightpath plot should make fascinating reading - the pilot tried to
follow his team mates who happened to be 100 ft higher.

Fortunately in this case the pilot was only slightly injured.

Cheers
Andreas

[[email protected]]

On Jul 30, 5:17*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 1:03*pm, Herb > wrote:
>
> > What a completely senseless and preventable accident. *Go back and
> > look at the vicious comments that were made here when BB suggested all
> > line finishes should be abolished in favor of the 500' and 1 mile
> > cylinder. *Mr. Larson's death should have been enough to quiet the
> > fans of low and fast. *Gliders have no business flying close to the
> > ground, same for other aircraft. *
>
> You and JJ seem to be under the impression that the Szeged accident
> resulted from a low altitude high speed approach. *Reports from the
> site indicate the glider, like some others finishing that day, was low
> energy.
>
> Do you have new information that conflicts with those reports?
>
> If not, can you please explain how the finish type was a factor in the
> accident.
>
> Andy (GY)

The difference is that the direct finish, flown perfectly means you
cross the finish line(airport boundary?) at exactly your average speed
for the task and at as little altitude as you dare. It doesn't take
much to have that go wrong.
The issue of safety of people other than the pilots is mostly a factor
of whether potential victims are in the flight path as opposed to
finishes across a lake(like Finland or big fields as we had in
Germany).
I suspect we will see a trend, even in Europe, away from direct
finishes.
Also a factor is this is the "big race" and people will take risks
they would not take any other time.
I speak from experience on this.
FWIW
UH

[hretting]

You're all a bunch of girlie men, being led by hysterics. Have all of
you aligned your cycles. We have been down this road before and it
seems some continue to want to bubble wrap the world from any
possiblility of pain or failure.
This attempt at fine tuning the rules to cover all the possiblilties
is futile. Mankind can make only so many feet of guard rails and
airbags.
Old men are ruining this sport.
R

[brianDG303[_2_]]

On Jul 30, 8:51*am, Tony > wrote:
> >Hauntingly similar to the Hawker collision.
>
> How so?

the large wing parts left stuck in the truck reminded me of the Hawker
crash:

http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html

and what that jet would have looked like had it been a tiny bit lower
and taken the wing through the window.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Jul 30, 9:10*pm, brianDG303 > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 8:51*am, Tony > wrote:
>
> > >Hauntingly similar to the Hawker collision.
>
> > How so?
>
> the large wing parts left stuck in the truck reminded me of the Hawker
> crash:
>
> http://jeremy.zawodny.com/blog/archives/007288.html
>
> and what that jet would have looked like had it been a tiny bit lower
> and taken the wing through the window.

ok i'll give you that.

[Z1]

On Jul 31, 8:47*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
> > Boring cylinder finishes anyone?
> > UH
>
> Boring *(but safe) cylinder finishes!
> I was rolling on the runway when another competitor did a low finish
> right over me, even though the cylinder finish was in use at Parowan.
> I thought he was trying to land in front of me for a second or two and
> was ready to ground-loop out of his way, if
> necessary................nope, just another hot-shot showing his
> ignorance as he did his little macho-crotcho low pass and then pulled
> up into a crowded pattern without a word over the radio!
>
> Radio contact is no longer needed to get a good start or finish and
> the most important use of the radio is to let each other know where we
> are in relation to finishing and landing. Recommend the rules call for
> a 4 mile call, finish and down-wind to XX radio calls.
>
> I CD'd Air Sailing Sports Class last week and instructed all to call 4
> miles, finish and down-wind to whatever and anyone below 500 feet
> better be in the pattern or doing a rolling finish!
>
> Hank, it is high time we get the unnecessary and unsafe line finish
> out of US rules and instruct CD's to not allow any low finishes.
> JJ (the outspoken trouble-maker)


You yanks crack me up...

The fact that he may have had his wheel and flaps down when he hit the
truck has nothing to do with it, lets not actually wait until the
whole fact are known, nah let's jump in and make lots of assumptions,
don't you think if he was in fact completing a high speed comp finish
the pilot would be dead???

No, you guys would rather have multiple gliders coming from different
directions at high speed with all the pilots focussing on looking at
there GPS's screens.

It seems to me that when you guys were all flying comps when you were
younger there seemed to be no problem with low level finish but now
your are all over 65 it's all to dangerous.

So lets ban comp finish, but make it perfectly alright to complete a
task after you have had a midair.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Jul 31, 12:48*am, Z1 > wrote:
> On Jul 31, 8:47*am, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Boring cylinder finishes anyone?
> > > UH
>
> > Boring *(but safe) cylinder finishes!
> > I was rolling on the runway when another competitor did a low finish
> > right over me, even though the cylinder finish was in use at Parowan.
> > I thought he was trying to land in front of me for a second or two and
> > was ready to ground-loop out of his way, if
> > necessary................nope, just another hot-shot showing his
> > ignorance as he did his little macho-crotcho low pass and then pulled
> > up into a crowded pattern without a word over the radio!
>
> > Radio contact is no longer needed to get a good start or finish and
> > the most important use of the radio is to let each other know where we
> > are in relation to finishing and landing. Recommend the rules call for
> > a 4 mile call, finish and down-wind to XX radio calls.
>
> > I CD'd Air Sailing Sports Class last week and instructed all to call 4
> > miles, finish and down-wind to whatever and anyone below 500 feet
> > better be in the pattern or doing a rolling finish!
>
> > Hank, it is high time we get the unnecessary and unsafe line finish
> > out of US rules and instruct CD's to not allow any low finishes.
> > JJ (the outspoken trouble-maker)
>
> You yanks crack me up...
>
> The fact that he may have had his wheel and flaps down when he hit the
> truck has nothing to do with it, lets not actually wait until the
> whole fact are known, nah let's jump in and make lots of assumptions,
> don't you think if he was in fact completing a high speed comp finish
> the pilot would be dead???
>
> No, you guys would rather have multiple gliders coming from different
> directions at high speed with all the pilots focussing on looking at
> there GPS's screens.
>
> It seems to me that when you guys were all flying comps when you were
> younger there seemed to be no problem with low level finish but now
> your are all over 65 it's all to dangerous.
>
> So lets ban comp finish, but make it perfectly alright to complete a
> task after you have had a midair.

This very sad event was an accident waiting to happen. It is
unfortunate that the organizers did not adequately recognize this
going in. We can have vigorous debate about rules intended to increase
safety for the participants, but anything that needlessly puts others
at risk just can't be accommodated. This is not about being girly men,
it is about conducting our sport with responsibility towards
outsiders.

[John Smith]

John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> This is not about being girly men, it is about conducting
> our sport with responsibility towards outsiders.

Exactly. It is always sad when a pilot kills himself, but then, after
all, it was him who decided to take the risk. But when an innocent
outsider gets involved, then it's a completely different story.

I don't know what the pilot did wrong or right. But the primary
responsability for this accident lies at the organisers, who decided to
set the task so that the final glide led over a populated road.

[JJ Sinclair]

> No, you guys would rather have multiple gliders coming from different
> directions at high speed with all the pilots focussing on looking at
> there GPS's screens.

We use our radio to tell each other direction and altitude as we enter
the finish cylinder and head-on trafic is 2 miles from each other at
the finish.

> It seems to me that when you guys were all flying comps when you were
> younger there seemed to be no problem with low level finish but now
> your are all over 65 it's all to dangerous.

May be, but the line finish was the only way to finish the race in the
distant past. Now days we have GPS and flying low and fast over
people, places and things is no longer necessary. Don't the FAR's have
something to say about flying below 500 feet while not in the act of
landing? Please don't tell me the low finisher is, "in the act of
landing". Has he slowed down? Has he lowered the landing gear? Has he
lowered the flaps? Has he made a down-wind call? No, No, No and No!
The Federallies could rip us a new one over this.

> So lets ban comp finish, but make it perfectly alright to complete a
> task after you have had a midair.

By the time both pilots sorted out what had happened, they were miles
apart and escorting the damaged ship to a safe landing was no longer
an option. He struck the other ship with his nose and knew that
portion of his ship was OK. He had another competitor look him over.
Why shouldn't the un-damaged ship continue?

JJ (old and sincerely trying to get older)

[Papa3]

On Jul 30, 6:50*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 2:47*pm, JJ Sinclair > wrote:
>
> > Low energy becomes evident at the end of your finish. The guy who
> > can't make the 500'/1mile cylinder calls for a straight-in landing.
> > The guy that finds himself with low energy while trying to make a 50'
> > finish line eats the fence/ hits a truck!
> > JJ
>
> A low energy final glide should be evident long before reaching either
> the finish cylinder or one mile from a finish line. *If there is no
> lift and a marginal glide to the airport the choice is to either land
> out or try to get over the fence. *The pilot who passed through the
> finish cylinder at best L/D and 200 ft is in exactly the same
> situation as the guy at best L/D and 200ft *and a mile out going for a
> line finish or a rolling finish. *The finish type makes no difference
> when there is insufficient energy to make the airport but the pilot
> continues to try for the airport.
>
> The argument that the finish cylinder would increase safety in this
> scenario may be valid if the pilot has the option to stop and work
> lift to get up to minimum finish altitude. *It may also be true that
> there is an increase in safety if pilot choses to landout after making
> the cylinder finish. *That requires landable areas between the
> cylinder circumference and the airport.
>
> As a result of the accident WGC has changed from a line finish to a
> cylinder finish. The Friday task sheet defines the finish as cylinder
> R=3.0 km with a 140M QNH min finish altitude. *According to the
> turnpoints database Szeged is at 80M. *Unless my calculations are
> wrong the required L/D from a valid finish to the airport is 50:1.
>
> The same choce remains - try to clear the fence or landout. *The
> points penalty for landing out is gone though, and maybe that's enough
> to make it safer. Let's hope so.
>
> Andy

It's actually pretty straightforward. The accident happened 20km or
30km out. The impact with the truck was just the final act.

Here's the deal. If you have 500 feet dialed in for your final glide
because that's the competition finish floor with a point penalty for
coming in low,, what are you gonna do when you take that last climb
30km out? If you're a smart racer, you're gonna put 500 feet plus
maybe another 200 feet of cushion in your arrival height and climb
accordingly. Then, you'll monitor your glide against that 500 foot
floor, not against a 0 foot arrival. If you're losing against that
500 foot floor, you might even stop to pick up an extra 100ft if you
hit a bump. Worst case, you blow the glide by 100ft and get a 40pt
penalty. You've still got 300 feet over the road and can easily make
the airport.

Worst case if you're aiming for 0 ft arrival, you take out an innocent
bystander and/or yourself.

Hey, it can still go all pear-shaped, and you end up with a very
marginal glide. But, by moving the floor to 500, you're simply re-
defining the combat arena and giving pilots an incentive to take risks
for points, not their lives.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

[T8]

On Jul 31, 7:14*am, John Smith > wrote:
> But the primary
> responsability for this accident lies at the organisers, who decided to
> set the task so that the final glide led over a populated road.

You're an accident looking for a place to happen with that attitude.

-T8

[vaughn[_3_]]

"John Smith" > wrote in message
. ..
> But the primary responsability for this accident lies at the organisers,

No way! The primary responsibility for the safety of every flight lies with the
PIC. The organizers have no authority to make any pilot do anything dangerous.

Vaughn

[John Cochrane]

At szeged there are beautiful fields for the last few miles short of
the road and barbed wire fence. The only thing separating a landing
just shy of the road in a field and a landing 1 cm over the barbed
wire fence and road is the substantial number of points offered by the
rules for trying to pop over the fence.

We say "pilots will act safely and throw away the contest when safety
intrudes" but time and again experience proves us wrong. Put 400
points 1 cm above a barbed wire fence and pilots go for it.

This is a solved problem. A substantial minimum height for finish,
coupled with very strong penalties for coming in low, means that for
pilots like the one in this accident, racing is over when you're
making the life or death safety decision of stopping in the last field
or popping over the fence.

Alas, IGC rules do not even allow the safe finish. Yes, they allow a
cylinder with minimum altitude, but the penalty for finishing low is a
warning the first time, and 25 points the following times. Compared to
the loss of all speed points for stopping in the last field, this will
do nothing. The US has gradually moved ot a cylinder finish with
substantial penalties for low arrival, which is helping.

To those who have "never heard" of this type of accident, go read the
accident reports. European accident reports are littered with crashed
gliders in the last few km of contest flights, driving into the ground
in the hope of squeaking over the fence. (Kudos to Sailplane and
Gliding for printing them.)

All this is explained in great detail in an article I wrote for
Soaring magazine nearly 10 years ago. Here is a link.

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/research/Papers/safer%20finishes.doc

I apologize for the harsh tone, but it's sad to see utterly
preventible accidents continue, and sadder still that international
rules do not even allow organizers to take the obvious corrective
action. This is not rocket science.

John Cochrane BB

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

So, we are all focusing on finish rules, etc. Would you still be
focusing on that if the pilot had made a safe, cylinder or line
finish, but flew a low approach to land at the edge of the field to
stop right by his trailer? This accident could have just as easily
been a safe finish followed by a low pattern.

I enjoyed the finish line, and I also like the finish cylinder. Heck,
I like the previous time of the flight too! It is up to us pilots to
be safe in all phases of our flights. You cannot make a rule that
will force this. Any rule that is made will have an edge that will
get tested in a way you never imagined. The new rule for this contest
can still permit the same thing to happen, if Andy's analysis is
correct. Finish at the bottom edge of the cylinder and have just
enough altitude to get to the field. All that happened is the
"finish the task bonus" moved out away from the airfield boundary.

This was a terrible accident that could have been avoided. It didn't
look like the sailplane came through a small gap in any trees, and
from the descriptions, there are lots of fields as you get close to
the airport, so he should have been able to see the truck coming.
Unless he had tunnel vision to the fence and airfield. Ever had
someone cut in front of you for landing, you change your plans, get a
bit low, and get focused only on one thing? You get pretty focused on
your landing area, and other things can go un-noticed. I suspect the
pilot was in this same "focused" mode, and never even saw the vehicles
that were crossing in front of him as he got closer to the airport.

Let's all plan our final glides and approaches with a bit more pad and
all be safe in doing what we love to do. Whether it be entering the
finish cylinder through the side, or just flying a safe pattern to a
safe landing.

Steve Leonard

[johngalloway[_2_]]

What about this?

Keep the distance and timing finish line at the airfield (with a
minimum altitude of, say 30 feet in the UK, for go-arounds). Many
contests have a control TP close to the finish to line finishers up.
Just give that control waypoint a suitable minimum altitude below
which the glider increasingly penalised by points, and an absolute
minumum below which it is considered unsafe to try to stretch the
glide to the finish and the glider is scored as uncontrolled for that
point and so gets distance points only for the flight. Gliders that
reach the final control point below the lower minumum will have an
extra disincentive to carry on to the airfield as they will lose (not
gain) distance points by their scoring distance being radiused back
along the last leg from the uncontrolled final waypoint as per normal
scoring practice.

A suitable choice of control point position (as regards distance,
finishing direction and, crucially, a safe landing field) and minimum
turning height (for energy surplus for a safe finish) would ensure
that the fun for the pilot and spectacle for helpers and spectators of
airfield finishes is maintained. The control point position and
minimum height can easily be chosen so as to encourage either go-
around or straight in finishes as desired by the contest organisers.

[My preference would be to encourage fast finishes to a safe low
minimum height and crossing a line and not a cylinder at the
airfield. The logic being that, with the above regime, successfully
finishing gliders will flying at similar (and adequate) speeds and
glide slopes and the dangerous conflicts between gliders final gliding
at different speeds and heights and flying over and under each other
is minimised. Using a line they can spread out laterally without
penalty - with a cylinder everyone aims for the same closest point.
Having a low but sensible minimum altitude is safer than high fast
finishes which tend to lead to gliders flying over and under each
other because of different eyeball judgements about their height.
Most people can make a reasonable estimate of 30 or 50 feet.]

John Galloway

[Craig Reinholt]

On Aug 1, 10:24*am, johngalloway > wrote:
> What about this?
>
> Keep the distance and timing finish line at the airfield (with a
> minimum altitude of, say 30 feet in the UK, for go-arounds). * *Many
> contests have a control TP close to the finish to line finishers up.
> Just give that control waypoint a suitable minimum altitude below
> which the glider increasingly penalised by points, and an absolute
> minumum below which it is considered unsafe to try to stretch the
> glide to the finish and the glider is scored as uncontrolled for that
> point and so gets distance points only for the flight. *Gliders that
> reach the final control point below the lower minumum will have an
> extra disincentive to carry on to the airfield as they will lose (not
> gain) distance points by their scoring distance being radiused back
> along the last leg from the uncontrolled final waypoint as per normal
> scoring practice.
>
> A suitable choice of control point position (as regards distance,
> finishing direction and, crucially, a safe landing field) and minimum
> turning height (for energy surplus for a safe finish) would ensure
> that the fun for the pilot and spectacle for helpers and spectators of
> airfield finishes is maintained. * *The control point position and
> minimum height can easily be chosen so as to encourage either go-
> around or straight in finishes as desired by the contest organisers.
>
> [My preference would be to encourage fast finishes to a safe low
> minimum height and crossing a line and not a cylinder at the
> airfield. *The logic being that, with the above regime, successfully
> finishing gliders will flying at similar (and adequate) speeds and
> glide slopes and the dangerous conflicts between gliders final gliding
> at different speeds and heights and flying over and under each other
> is minimised. *Using a line they can spread out laterally without
> penalty - with a cylinder everyone aims for the same closest point.
> Having a low but sensible minimum altitude is safer than high fast
> finishes which tend to lead to gliders flying over and under each
> other because of different eyeball judgements about their height.
> Most people can make a reasonable estimate of 30 or 50 feet.]
>
> John Galloway


The previous discussions fall into one of two camps. One to implement
a higher finish to improve the chance of a safe pattern/landing and
the other is for maintaining the low (exciting) finish. Race results
are unaffected either way. We all understand both sides of the coin.
To me, however, risk versus reward comes into play here. The reward is
excitement at the end of a mentally and physically challenging day.
But who is at risk?

If all this talk was just about the inbound pilot, I’d say without
reservation to keep the low finish going. If a pilot is foolish enough
to push the boundaries and gets himself hurt or killed, that is his
problem. I have zero sympathy for that person. I’ll reserve that for
his family. However, when my hide is on the line with incoming pilots
who skill level or physical condition at the end of the day (read
dehydrated, mentally upset, tired, etc.) is suspect, then I want
options and the low finish minimizes that. Then, of course, we have
the innocent bystanders that this thread started with.

Perhaps compassion for what may happen to the other guy should
outweigh the excitement that the low finish provides the pilot?

Craig Reinholt

[[email protected]]

On Aug 1, 1:24*pm, johngalloway > wrote:
> What about this?
>
> Keep the distance and timing finish line at the airfield (with a
> minimum altitude of, say 30 feet in the UK, for go-arounds). * *Many
> contests have a control TP close to the finish to line finishers up.
> Just give that control waypoint a suitable minimum altitude below
> which the glider increasingly penalised by points, and an absolute
> minumum below which it is considered unsafe to try to stretch the
> glide to the finish and the glider is scored as uncontrolled for that
> point and so gets distance points only for the flight. *Gliders that
> reach the final control point below the lower minumum will have an
> extra disincentive to carry on to the airfield as they will lose (not
> gain) distance points by their scoring distance being radiused back
> along the last leg from the uncontrolled final waypoint as per normal
> scoring practice.
>
> A suitable choice of control point position (as regards distance,
> finishing direction and, crucially, a safe landing field) and minimum
> turning height (for energy surplus for a safe finish) would ensure
> that the fun for the pilot and spectacle for helpers and spectators of
> airfield finishes is maintained. * *The control point position and
> minimum height can easily be chosen so as to encourage either go-
> around or straight in finishes as desired by the contest organisers.
>
> [My preference would be to encourage fast finishes to a safe low
> minimum height and crossing a line and not a cylinder at the
> airfield. *The logic being that, with the above regime, successfully
> finishing gliders will flying at similar (and adequate) speeds and
> glide slopes and the dangerous conflicts between gliders final gliding
> at different speeds and heights and flying over and under each other
> is minimised. *Using a line they can spread out laterally without
> penalty - with a cylinder everyone aims for the same closest point.
> Having a low but sensible minimum altitude is safer than high fast
> finishes which tend to lead to gliders flying over and under each
> other because of different eyeball judgements about their height.
> Most people can make a reasonable estimate of 30 or 50 feet.]
>
> John Galloway

There is a flaw in your statement as there is no reason with a finish
cylinder to flt to a particular point. The US cylinder, as an example,
is set to score the finish point and time to wherever the pilot enters
the cylinder. As such there is no incentive or need to concentrate
gliders on some small point. They can finish and then work into
joining the established landing pattern at low speed and with time and
altitude to fit in and hopefully, land safely.
UH

[RRK]

On Jul 31, 7:14*am, John Smith > wrote:
> John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> > This is not about being girly men, *it is about conducting
> > our sport with responsibility towards outsiders.
>
> Exactly. It is always sad when a pilot kills himself, but then, after
> all, it was him who decided to take the risk. But when an innocent
> outsider gets involved, then it's a completely different story.
>
> I don't know what the pilot did wrong or right. But the primary
> responsability for this accident lies at the organisers, who decided to
> set the task so that the final glide led over a populated road.

WRONG. The primary responsibility for this accident lies at the Pilot.
And it does matter what the pilot did wrong or right.
rrk

[Bruce]

I have sympathy for both sides here.
The contestant who loses a lot of points if he does not make a hop over
the wall.
The truck driver who was confronted with an emergency in the normal
course of his work.

So - let's disregard all the legality and sophistry. Is it ethical?

The pilot knew what risk he was taking.
The unwitting victim in the truck was exposed to risks he should not
have been, and had no choice in taking.

The discussion is left to the class as an exercise, some initial points:

Could the organisers have closed the road? - I don't know - but it would
have been a good idea.
Could the organisers have made an effective plan to ensure the pilots
made safe decisions. Not really from my understanding of the FAI rules,
and the general consequences of contest thinking.

Should the pilot have made the safe decision and landed 500m short? -
indubitably. (In hindsight).

The problem is that in almost every contest there are multiple instances
of "getting away with it". If he had been 12m further along (at 90km/h
that is about half a second...) it would have been an almost unremarked
landing. The contest director would have issued a warning for "low
finish" and everyone would have the opportunity to celebrate a heroic
return after a difficult day. There might have been a complaint from the
truck driver, but who would give credence to his claim that he missed an
aircraft by centimetres...

Legally - from an Air Law perspective - the glider was in the act of
landing, so the low height is not illegal. From a road law perspective?
In road law this would probably result in a "reckless driving" charge.
In most jurisdictions , if you knowingly operate a car in such a way
that you knowingly and wilfully endanger others it is considered a
criminal act. The courts could reasonably apply the came logic here.

Did the pilot see the truck? Who knows, but I doubt it. There are well
documented tests that demonstrate how we selectively filter things out
when the cognitive load is too high.

Last question is what do we as soaring pilots do to prevent this kind of
thing from happening again.

Lots of suggestions have been made.
As an observation - Racing pilots , in my experience make very logical
decisions when it comes to maximising the points they will get.

S- do we change to finish cylinders or apply minimum heights or some
other mechanism to align safety with contest points. - Then when it
comes to decision time the better choice is more likely - I personally
like the one of a minimum height at a positioning turnpoint with points
deducted for distance from there is you are below the height to make a
safe approach. Unfortunately even that will not prevent people pilots
using the excess energy to make screaming approaches to land 1cm over
the fence.

The problem is that it is already getting regulated to the point where
it becomes impractical.

So - do we just accept that insanely low flying is a logical consequence
of racing gliders with incredible performance? If so the we need to
ensure that it does not happen where non-participants are placed at
risk. You would need to be able to clear a substantial approach area of
people for that...


Bruce


On 2010/08/01 8:30 PM, Craig Reinholt wrote:
> On Aug 1, 10:24 am, > wrote:
>> What about this?
>>
>> Keep the distance and timing finish line at the airfield (with a
>> minimum altitude of, say 30 feet in the UK, for go-arounds). Many
>> contests have a control TP close to the finish to line finishers up.
>> Just give that control waypoint a suitable minimum altitude below
>> which the glider increasingly penalised by points, and an absolute
>> minumum below which it is considered unsafe to try to stretch the
>> glide to the finish and the glider is scored as uncontrolled for that
>> point and so gets distance points only for the flight. Gliders that
>> reach the final control point below the lower minumum will have an
>> extra disincentive to carry on to the airfield as they will lose (not
>> gain) distance points by their scoring distance being radiused back
>> along the last leg from the uncontrolled final waypoint as per normal
>> scoring practice.
>>
>> A suitable choice of control point position (as regards distance,
>> finishing direction and, crucially, a safe landing field) and minimum
>> turning height (for energy surplus for a safe finish) would ensure
>> that the fun for the pilot and spectacle for helpers and spectators of
>> airfield finishes is maintained. The control point position and
>> minimum height can easily be chosen so as to encourage either go-
>> around or straight in finishes as desired by the contest organisers.
>>
>> [My preference would be to encourage fast finishes to a safe low
>> minimum height and crossing a line and not a cylinder at the
>> airfield. The logic being that, with the above regime, successfully
>> finishing gliders will flying at similar (and adequate) speeds and
>> glide slopes and the dangerous conflicts between gliders final gliding
>> at different speeds and heights and flying over and under each other
>> is minimised. Using a line they can spread out laterally without
>> penalty - with a cylinder everyone aims for the same closest point.
>> Having a low but sensible minimum altitude is safer than high fast
>> finishes which tend to lead to gliders flying over and under each
>> other because of different eyeball judgements about their height.
>> Most people can make a reasonable estimate of 30 or 50 feet.]
>>
>> John Galloway
>
>
> The previous discussions fall into one of two camps. One to implement
> a higher finish to improve the chance of a safe pattern/landing and
> the other is for maintaining the low (exciting) finish. Race results
> are unaffected either way. We all understand both sides of the coin.
> To me, however, risk versus reward comes into play here. The reward is
> excitement at the end of a mentally and physically challenging day.
> But who is at risk?
>
> If all this talk was just about the inbound pilot, I’d say without
> reservation to keep the low finish going. If a pilot is foolish enough
> to push the boundaries and gets himself hurt or killed, that is his
> problem. I have zero sympathy for that person. I’ll reserve that for
> his family. However, when my hide is on the line with incoming pilots
> who skill level or physical condition at the end of the day (read
> dehydrated, mentally upset, tired, etc.) is suspect, then I want
> options and the low finish minimizes that. Then, of course, we have
> the innocent bystanders that this thread started with.
>
> Perhaps compassion for what may happen to the other guy should
> outweigh the excitement that the low finish provides the pilot?
>
> Craig Reinholt


--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---

[noel.wade]

Bruce -

Except there's a flaw in your logic. You correctly point out that a
minimum height at a steering turn before the finish could put people
on a glide-path to make the airport. But doesn't stop them from
screaming in at low altitude (as you point out). And given how far
gliders can fly in ground-effect, your argument for long, safe
approaches would mean clearing a few MILES around the airport. Its
just not practical.

Wouldn't a minimum height of 500 feet or so across the finish-line fix
this? There's ZERO incentive to come in low if you're going to lose
points for it. Yes, it doesn't stop a pilot from doing something
stupid; but you can never make things idiot-proof. All you can do is
reduce the incentives to make bad decisions - and a minimum height
removes any incentive for trying to squeak in, for all but a few
instances.

--Noel

[Dave Springford]

Andy,

Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. What is missing
is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. This means that when
you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

[andy]

On Aug 2, 7:43*pm, Dave Springford > wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. *What is missing
> is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
> the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. *This means that when
> you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
> from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
> This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
> flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

.... and also add that the glider will probably be flying faster when
reaching the finish ring, so will have a bit more energy to spare

or if it doesn't, it can land short if necessary

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 2, 11:43*am, Dave Springford > wrote:
> Andy,
>
> Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. *What is missing
> is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
> the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. *This means that when
> you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
> from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
> This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
> flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

Thanks for the correction Dave. I went back and looked at the last 3
days task sheets and now see that when 16 is the landing runway then
Szeged34 is the finish centre, and when 36 is active Szeged16 defines
the centre. I had missed that.

Andy (GY)

[Bruce]

On 2010/07/30 4:03 PM, ppp1 wrote:
> This looks very bad. Pilot ok, but the truck driver in critical
> condition.
>
> http://picasaweb.google.com/itb.panorama/WGC2010GliderCrashSzegedHungary#


Any news on the truck driver's recovery?

Did the authorities press charges against the pilot. He was apparently
detained at least temporarily by the police.

Bruce

--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ---