Logan contest reporting now only on Soaring Cafe [Archive]

Darryl Ramm

July 24th 11, 12:56 AM

On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
> > > the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
> > > your articles very much.
>
> > > If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
> > > are welcome to do that.
>
> > > Paul Remde
>
> > > "T8" > wrote in message
>
> > ....
> > > On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > > > I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> > > > posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> > > > reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
> > > > using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
> > > > freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
> > > > perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
> > > > point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
> > > > and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).
>
> > > As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
> > > site.
>
> > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> > Me too!!
>
> Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
> someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!
>
> P3

Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
attempts to gag posts like this.

Darryl

Andrzej Kobus

July 24th 11, 01:29 AM

On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, " >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
> > > > the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
> > > > your articles very much.
>
> > > > If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
> > > > are welcome to do that.
>
> > > > Paul Remde
>
> > > > "T8" > wrote in message
>
> > > ...
> > > > On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > > > > I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> > > > > posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> > > > > reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
> > > > > using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
> > > > > freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
> > > > > perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
> > > > > point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
> > > > > and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).
>
> > > > As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
> > > > site.
>
> > > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> > > Me too!!
>
> > Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
> > someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!
>
> > P3
>
> Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
> benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
> becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
> would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
> attempts to gag posts like this.
>
> Darryl

Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
happened!

Albert Thomas

July 24th 11, 03:07 AM

On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, " >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
> > > > > the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
> > > > > your articles very much.
>
> > > > > If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
> > > > > are welcome to do that.
>
> > > > > Paul Remde
>
> > > > > "T8" > wrote in message
>
> > > > ...
> > > > > On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> > > > > > posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> > > > > > reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
> > > > > > using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
> > > > > > freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
> > > > > > perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
> > > > > > point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
> > > > > > and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).
>
> > > > > As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
> > > > > site.
>
> > > > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> > > > Me too!!
>
> > > Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
> > > someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!
>
> > > P3
>
> > Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
> > benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
> > becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
> > would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
> > attempts to gag posts like this.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
> website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
> Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
> happened!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
this crapshoot.

Tuno

July 24th 11, 03:19 AM

I think the SSA needs to make a decision: either disallow their
approved CD's from making task calls over (widely) unlandable terrain,
or pinch their nose and allow the reporters an open mic.

~ted/2NO

Mike the Strike

July 24th 11, 04:58 AM

On Jul 23, 7:07*pm, Albert Thomas > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, " >
> > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
> > > > > > the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
> > > > > > your articles very much.
>
> > > > > > If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
> > > > > > are welcome to do that.
>
> > > > > > Paul Remde
>
> > > > > > "T8" > wrote in message
>
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> > > > > > > posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> > > > > > > reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
> > > > > > > using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
> > > > > > > freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
> > > > > > > perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
> > > > > > > point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
> > > > > > > and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).
>
> > > > > > As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
> > > > > > site.
>
> > > > > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> > > > > Me too!!
>
> > > > Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
> > > > someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!
>
> > > > P3
>
> > > Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
> > > benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
> > > becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
> > > would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
> > > attempts to gag posts like this.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
> > website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
> > Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
> > happened!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
> Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
> blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
> account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
> Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
> for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
> manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
> resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
> 9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
> soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
> unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
> of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
> this crapshoot.

First of all, let's put a number on the gliders damaged flying at
Logan this past week.

I count two that I would regard as damaged (needing calls to the
insurance rep), both landing mishaps - one on a rocky mountain meadow,
the other in tall barley. If you count the plane that lost its tail
skid and the one that lost a wingtip skid (mine), you could stretch it
to four. I've no idea where the "5" damaged gliders number comes
from. Based on my experience of flying out west, 2 out of 60 is
pretty much par for a contest.

The terrain can be intimidating for folks not used to flying in the
mountains, and on my first flights here I am also treading warily
cross-country. Climbing out from low on the mountains is common in
many parts of the world and if you're not comfortable "sticking your
wings in the trees" as one here put it, you're better off somewhere
else. It's definitely not a site for beginners or wusses.

There have been more landouts than usual, but quite a few resulted
from unexpected weather rather than stiff tasks. I flew Friday's
regional FAI task and did the east/west transition for the first time
and had no problems, so I've no idea why others found it tough.

I was initially concerned about crowding on the ridges, but I have
seen many worse sites around the world and have not felt at particular
risk here. (I would like my Flarm though. Please! You know, the one
that was supposedly being delivered last May!)

I've no idea where the SAA censorship came from. Considering that
blogs are personal accounts, I see nothing major to complain about. I
might describe things differently from my perspective, but that's how
it goes.

Mike

July 24th 11, 05:22 AM

I thought TA had been doing a great job of reporting from contests.
Jim

Try:
http://soaringcafe.com/category/latest/

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

July 24th 11, 06:00 AM

On 7/23/2011 7:07 PM, Albert Thomas wrote:
> As a contest
> manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
> resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
> 9.3% of the sailplanes entered,

Maybe I'm misinterpreting how you said it, but...

How did the tasks result in damage? Did the area contain fields that
appeared suitable, but in fact, weren't, and the CD knew that? Were the
weather conditions, coupled with the task, such that the CD should have
known would likely surprise pilots with unpredictable sink or headwinds?

To put it another way: what about the task made pilots fly so that they
ended up landing in unsuitable fields?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

Walt Connelly

July 24th 11, 01:54 PM

On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

- Show quoted text -

Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
this crapshoot.

Censorship is wrong. I have enjoyed Frank's reports, they give those of us who love this stuff an opportunity to get first hand observations of these events in a timely manner. What are we to do otherwise, wait three or four months for the SSA magazine article? Sure the Soaring Cafe is another venue but it's the censorship part that bothers me.

If there is truly something being said that would negatively affect the insurance premiums, that needs to be discussed and a compromise agreed upon. That's not censorship, that's simply addressing a reasonable concern. Undoubtedly there are geographic environments which are less desirable to flat land pilots but they have the option to either enter the event or not. The Logan folks should want to be up front about such things. Just watch a video or two from Bruno and you will get an idea of how different that area is from the flat earth types.

I would suggest that all SSA members go to the SSA page, go to "contact us" and voice our concerns. I plan to do so.

Walt

[email protected]

July 24th 11, 02:16 PM

On Jul 23, 10:00*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 7/23/2011 7:07 PM, Albert Thomas wrote:
>
> > As a contest
> > manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
> > resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
> > 9.3% of the sailplanes entered,
>
> Maybe I'm misinterpreting how you said it, but...
>
> How did the tasks result in damage? Did the area contain fields that
> appeared suitable, but in fact, weren't, and the CD knew that? Were the
> weather conditions, coupled with the task, such that the CD should have
> known would likely surprise pilots with unpredictable sink or headwinds?
>
> To put it another way: what about the task made pilots fly so that they
> ended up landing in unsuitable fields?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

Having been CD of many contests, I agree with Eric and FDR (quoted
below). There are many areas that have similar "starting" conditions,
Bishop comes to mind and Parowan also, as we learned a couple of weeks
ago.
THE MAN IN THE ARENA

Excerpt from the speech "Citizenship In A Republic",
delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910 by
Franklin D. Roosevelt

"It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives
valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is
no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive
to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who
spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the
triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at
least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be
with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "

Thank goodness for those who would be CD's, without them contests are
a thing of the past.

gary kemp

July 24th 11, 02:51 PM

On Jul 24, 9:16*am, " >
wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:00*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 7/23/2011 7:07 PM, Albert Thomas wrote:
>
> > > As a contest
> > > manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
> > > resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
> > > 9.3% of the sailplanes entered,
>
> > Maybe I'm misinterpreting how you said it, but...
>
> > How did the tasks result in damage? Did the area contain fields that
> > appeared suitable, but in fact, weren't, and the CD knew that? Were the
> > weather conditions, coupled with the task, such that the CD should have
> > known would likely surprise pilots with unpredictable sink or headwinds?
>
> > To put it another way: what about the task made pilots fly so that they
> > ended up landing in unsuitable fields?
>
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> > email me)
>
> Having been CD of many contests, I agree with Eric and FDR (quoted
> below). *There are many areas that have similar "starting" conditions,
> Bishop comes to mind and Parowan also, as we learned a couple of weeks
> ago.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE MAN IN THE ARENA
>
> * * * * * *Excerpt from the speech "Citizenship In A Republic",
> delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910 by
> Franklin D. Roosevelt
>
> "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the
> strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
> better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
> whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives
> valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is
> no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive
> to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who
> spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the
> triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at
> least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be
> with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "
>
> Thank goodness for those who would be CD's, without them contests are
> a thing of the past.
>
> gary kemp

Nice quote, even if it came from a scoundrel :-).

I'm keenly interested in this issue. Filtering opinions on the SSA
site is as fruitless as it is demeaning to the organization.

There's no real need for more SSA policy (I hope). Much better to get
an apology, dissenting opinion out in the open, put the danged reports
back up. I thought one of you was a professor at the local U. Are
you all so PC now you can't deal with a little unfiltered opinion?

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Tony V

July 24th 11, 03:01 PM

> If there is truly something being said that would negatively affect the
> insurance premiums, that needs to be discussed and a compromise agreed
> upon.

I strongly suspect that the insurance business is run by professionals
and that public posts by individuals are irrelevant to them. What
matters to them is the claims that they receive and the money that they
have to pay out.

Tony "6N"

David Leonard

July 24th 11, 03:06 PM

On 7/24/2011 7:51 AM, T8 wrote:
>
> Nice quote, even if it came from a scoundrel :-).
>
> I'm keenly interested in this issue. Filtering opinions on the SSA
> site is as fruitless as it is demeaning to the organization.
>
> There's no real need for more SSA policy (I hope). Much better to get
> an apology, dissenting opinion out in the open, put the danged reports
> back up. I thought one of you was a professor at the local U. Are
> you all so PC now you can't deal with a little unfiltered opinion?
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

Is the SSA contest report website really the place for editorial pieces?
Or fun exaggerated stories? Or is it for news reporting?

The soaring cafe can be whatever it wants. RAS is whatever it is. Blogs
are perfect for opinions.

Please stick to news reporting in the SSA contest reports.

ZL

One of many happy Logan contestants

July 24th 11, 03:42 PM

On Jul 24, 10:06*am, David Leonard > wrote:
> On 7/24/2011 7:51 AM, T8 wrote:
>
>
>
> > Nice quote, even if it came from a scoundrel :-).
>
> > I'm keenly interested in this issue. *Filtering opinions on the SSA
> > site is as fruitless as it is demeaning to the organization.
>
> > There's no real need for more SSA policy (I hope). *Much better to get
> > an apology, dissenting opinion out in the open, put the danged reports
> > back up. *I thought one of you was a *professor at the local U. *Are
> > you all so PC now you can't deal with a little unfiltered opinion?
>
> > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Is the SSA contest report website really the place for editorial pieces?
> Or fun exaggerated stories? Or is it for news reporting?
>
> The soaring cafe can be whatever it wants. RAS is whatever it is. Blogs
> are perfect for opinions.
>
> Please stick to news reporting in the SSA contest reports.
>
> ZL
>
> One of many happy Logan contestants

The news is on the scoresheet. All else is color commentary. A
certain amount of personal opinion has been a part of color commentary
since time began... and certainly since Sailplane Racing News was a
four page newsletter with a stamp and a postmark from Reno.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

hretting

July 24th 11, 09:56 PM

ZL, the sport is dying fast enough. Are you going to be the 'Writers
Police"? TA is simply giving everyone who's anyone a 'contest junkie'
perpective that brings readers into the battle. Otherwise, have one of
the managers write their boring account that puts us all to sleep.
"The winner today was Nucklehead Liebenovich who circled to the left
and then circled to the right and then landed. We ate dried fried
chicken, milky coleslaw,and biscutts
afterwards.<sniiioooorkkkkkllllleeeeeeee (head hitting table)>"

UH, KM, XM... you better call somebody quick before Logan ends up in
the ****ter as a 'not very friendly place'.

R

Maybe I should Discard this message...oops...wrong butt..

[email protected]

July 24th 11, 10:24 PM

On Jul 24, 4:56*pm, hretting > wrote:
> ZL, the sport is dying fast enough. Are you going to be the 'Writers
> Police"? TA is simply giving everyone who's anyone a 'contest junkie'
> perpective that brings readers into the battle. Otherwise, have one of
> the managers write their boring account that puts us all to sleep.
> "The winner today was Nucklehead Liebenovich who circled to the left
> and then circled to the right and then landed. We ate dried fried
> chicken, milky coleslaw,and biscutts
> afterwards.<sniiioooorkkkkkllllleeeeeeee (head hitting table)>"
>
> UH, KM, XM... you better call somebody quick before Logan ends up in
> the ****ter as a 'not very friendly place'.
>
> R
>
> Maybe I should Discard this message...oops...wrong butt..

I can only hope the organizers find another volunteer to replace the
one they removed.
Frank's posts we removed at their request.
Personally, I will read his reports on Soaring Cafe.
I would rather read on SSA.
Interested reader - UH

Walt Connelly

July 25th 11, 04:56 AM

ZL, the sport is dying fast enough. Are you going to be the 'Writers
Police"? TA is simply giving everyone who's anyone a 'contest junkie'
perpective that brings readers into the battle. Otherwise, have one of
the managers write their boring account that puts us all to sleep.
"The winner today was Nucklehead Liebenovich who circled to the left
and then circled to the right and then landed. We ate dried fried
chicken, milky coleslaw,and biscutts
afterwards.sniiioooorkkkkkllllleeeeeeee (head hitting table)"

UH, KM, XM... you better call somebody quick before Logan ends up in
the ****ter as a 'not very friendly place'.

R

Maybe I should Discard this message...oops...wrong butt..

'BRAVO."

Walt

July 25th 11, 05:14 AM

On Jul 24, 7:16*am, " >
wrote:
> On Jul 23, 10:00*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 7/23/2011 7:07 PM, Albert Thomas wrote:
>
> > > As a contest
> > > manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
> > > resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
> > > 9.3% of the sailplanes entered,
>
> > Maybe I'm misinterpreting how you said it, but...
>
> > How did the tasks result in damage? Did the area contain fields that
> > appeared suitable, but in fact, weren't, and the CD knew that? Were the
> > weather conditions, coupled with the task, such that the CD should have
> > known would likely surprise pilots with unpredictable sink or headwinds?
>
> > To put it another way: what about the task made pilots fly so that they
> > ended up landing in unsuitable fields?
>
> > --
> > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> > email me)
>
> Having been CD of many contests, I agree with Eric and FDR (quoted
> below). *There are many areas that have similar "starting" conditions,
> Bishop comes to mind and Parowan also, as we learned a couple of weeks
> ago.
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE MAN IN THE ARENA
>
> * * * * * *Excerpt from the speech "Citizenship In A Republic",
> delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910 by
> Franklin D. Roosevelt
>
> "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the
> strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
> better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
> whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives
> valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is
> no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive
> to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who
> spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the
> triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at
> least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be
> with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "
>
> Thank goodness for those who would be CD's, without them contests are
> a thing of the past.
>
> gary kemp- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think someone needs to get their Roosevelts straight.

[email protected]

July 25th 11, 02:57 PM

On Jul 24, 9:14*pm, 4Z > wrote:
> On Jul 24, 7:16*am, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 10:00*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
>
> > > On 7/23/2011 7:07 PM, Albert Thomas wrote:
>
> > > > As a contest
> > > > manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
> > > > resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
> > > > 9.3% of the sailplanes entered,
>
> > > Maybe I'm misinterpreting how you said it, but...
>
> > > How did the tasks result in damage? Did the area contain fields that
> > > appeared suitable, but in fact, weren't, and the CD knew that? Were the
> > > weather conditions, coupled with the task, such that the CD should have
> > > known would likely surprise pilots with unpredictable sink or headwinds?
>
> > > To put it another way: what about the task made pilots fly so that they
> > > ended up landing in unsuitable fields?
>
> > > --
> > > Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> > > email me)
>
> > Having been CD of many contests, I agree with Eric and FDR (quoted
> > below). *There are many areas that have similar "starting" conditions,
> > Bishop comes to mind and Parowan also, as we learned a couple of weeks
> > ago.
> > * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * THE MAN IN THE ARENA
>
> > * * * * * *Excerpt from the speech "Citizenship In A Republic",
> > delivered at the Sorbonne, in Paris, France on 23 April, 1910 by
> > Franklin D. Roosevelt
>
> > "It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the
> > strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them
> > better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena,
> > whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives
> > valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is
> > no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive
> > to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who
> > spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the
> > triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at
> > least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be
> > with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. "
>
> > Thank goodness for those who would be CD's, without them contests are
> > a thing of the past.
>
> > gary kemp- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I think someone needs to get their Roosevelts straight

FDR was the Pres when I grew up, slip of the tongue, actually Teddy
Roosevelt was the author, still valid though.

Buba Smith

July 25th 11, 03:27 PM

On Jul 23, 9:58*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 7:07*pm, Albert Thomas > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, " >
> > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
> > > > > > > the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
> > > > > > > your articles very much.
>
> > > > > > > If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
> > > > > > > are welcome to do that.
>
> > > > > > > Paul Remde
>
> > > > > > > "T8" > wrote in message
>
> > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> > > > > > > > posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> > > > > > > > reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
> > > > > > > > using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
> > > > > > > > freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
> > > > > > > > perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
> > > > > > > > point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
> > > > > > > > and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).
>
> > > > > > > As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
> > > > > > > site.
>
> > > > > > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> > > > > > Me too!!
>
> > > > > Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
> > > > > someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!
>
> > > > > P3
>
> > > > Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
> > > > benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
> > > > becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
> > > > would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
> > > > attempts to gag posts like this.
>
> > > > Darryl
>
> > > Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
> > > website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
> > > Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
> > > happened!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
> > Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
> > blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
> > account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
> > Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
> > for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
> > manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
> > resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
> > 9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
> > soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
> > unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
> > of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
> > this crapshoot.
>
> First of all, let's put a number on the gliders damaged flying at
> Logan this past week.
>
> I count two that I would regard as damaged (needing calls to the
> insurance rep), both landing mishaps - one on a rocky mountain meadow,
> the other in tall barley. *If you count the plane that lost its tail
> skid and the one that lost a wingtip skid (mine), you could stretch it
> to four. *I've no idea where the "5" damaged gliders number comes
> from. *Based on my experience of flying out west, 2 out of 60 is
> pretty much par for a contest.
>
> The terrain can be intimidating for folks not used to flying in the
> mountains, and on my first flights here I am also treading warily
> cross-country. *Climbing out from low on the mountains is common in
> many parts of the world and if you're not comfortable "sticking your
> wings in the trees" as one here put it, you're better off somewhere
> else. *It's definitely not a site for beginners or wusses.
>
> There have been more landouts than usual, but quite a few resulted
> from unexpected weather rather than stiff tasks. * I flew Friday's
> regional FAI task and did the east/west transition for the first time
> and had no problems, so I've no idea why others found it tough.
>
> I was initially concerned about crowding on the ridges, but I have
> seen many worse sites around the world and have not felt at particular
> risk here. *(I would like my Flarm though. *Please! *You know, the one
> that was supposedly being delivered last May!)
>
> I've no idea where the SAA censorship came from. *Considering that
> blogs are personal accounts, I see nothing major to complain about. I
> might describe things differently from my perspective, but that's how
> it goes.
>
> Mike

Mike ,
First , it was a pleasure getting to know you and hearing your WX
reports every Morning . Second , lets set the damaged ships aside for
a moment and look at the number of competitors ( In Sports Class ) who
finished tasks on certain days . Many who did finish and did well in
the scoring where complaining that , given the conditions , the tasks
where intimidating and they were having to take unnecessary risks . I
don't know what the normal ratio of finishers is but 1 out of 3 or 4
seems awfully low . This was brought up at Thursdays Pilot Meeting and
the response was essentially " If I say its safe to search this
Beach ........ " . The SSA should allow this to be addressed on the
Website . Lets hope the conditions improve for the remaining
Nationals tasks and this probably will cease to be much of an issue .
Thanks for your service at the contest .
R4

Buba Smith

July 25th 11, 04:23 PM

On Jul 25, 8:27*am, Buba Smith > wrote:
> On Jul 23, 9:58*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 23, 7:07*pm, Albert Thomas > wrote:
>
> > > On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus > wrote:
>
> > > > On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, " >
> > > > > > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
> > > > > > > > the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
> > > > > > > > your articles very much.
>
> > > > > > > > If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
> > > > > > > > are welcome to do that.
>
> > > > > > > > Paul Remde
>
> > > > > > > > "T8" > wrote in message
>
> > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> > > > > > > > > posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> > > > > > > > > reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
> > > > > > > > > using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
> > > > > > > > > freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
> > > > > > > > > perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
> > > > > > > > > point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
> > > > > > > > > and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).
>
> > > > > > > > As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
> > > > > > > > site.
>
> > > > > > > > -Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> > > > > > > Me too!!
>
> > > > > > Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
> > > > > > someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!
>
> > > > > > P3
>
> > > > > Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
> > > > > benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
> > > > > becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
> > > > > would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
> > > > > attempts to gag posts like this.
>
> > > > > Darryl
>
> > > > Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
> > > > website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
> > > > Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
> > > > happened!- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
> > > Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
> > > blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
> > > account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
> > > Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
> > > for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
> > > manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
> > > resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
> > > 9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
> > > soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
> > > unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
> > > of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
> > > this crapshoot.
>
> > First of all, let's put a number on the gliders damaged flying at
> > Logan this past week.
>
> > I count two that I would regard as damaged (needing calls to the
> > insurance rep), both landing mishaps - one on a rocky mountain meadow,
> > the other in tall barley. *If you count the plane that lost its tail
> > skid and the one that lost a wingtip skid (mine), you could stretch it
> > to four. *I've no idea where the "5" damaged gliders number comes
> > from. *Based on my experience of flying out west, 2 out of 60 is
> > pretty much par for a contest.
>
> > The terrain can be intimidating for folks not used to flying in the
> > mountains, and on my first flights here I am also treading warily
> > cross-country. *Climbing out from low on the mountains is common in
> > many parts of the world and if you're not comfortable "sticking your
> > wings in the trees" as one here put it, you're better off somewhere
> > else. *It's definitely not a site for beginners or wusses.
>
> > There have been more landouts than usual, but quite a few resulted
> > from unexpected weather rather than stiff tasks. * I flew Friday's
> > regional FAI task and did the east/west transition for the first time
> > and had no problems, so I've no idea why others found it tough.
>
> > I was initially concerned about crowding on the ridges, but I have
> > seen many worse sites around the world and have not felt at particular
> > risk here. *(I would like my Flarm though. *Please! *You know, the one
> > that was supposedly being delivered last May!)
>
> > I've no idea where the SAA censorship came from. *Considering that
> > blogs are personal accounts, I see nothing major to complain about. I
> > might describe things differently from my perspective, but that's how
> > it goes.
>
> > Mike
>
> Mike ,
> First , it was a pleasure getting to know you and hearing your WX
> reports every Morning . Second , lets set the damaged ships aside for
> a moment and look at the number of competitors ( In Sports Class ) who
> finished tasks on certain days . Many who did finish and did well inoo
> the scoring where complaining that , given the conditions , the tasks
> where intimidating and they were having to take unnecessary risks . *I
> don't know what the normal ratio of finishers is but 1 out of 3 or 4
> seems awfully low . This was brought up at Thursdays Pilot Meeting and
> the response was essentially " If I say its safe to search this
> Beach ........ " . *The SSA should allow this to be addressed on the
> Website . *Lets hope the conditions improve for the remaining
> Nationals tasks and this probably will cease to be much of an issue .
> Thanks for your service at the contest .
> R4

oops , Thats " Surf this beach " , Sorry

July 25th 11, 05:27 PM

Frank Paynter > wrote:
> I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com.
>

Hi Frank, I really enjoy your contest reports. I am terribly
disappointed in whoever at SSA decided to censor your writeups. I could
understand someone posting a contrasting view, but censorship is simply
uncalled for.
--
wallace berry

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

July 26th 11, 01:45 AM

On Jul 25, 12:27*pm, WB > wrote:
> Frank Paynter > wrote:
> > I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> > posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> > reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. *
>
> Hi Frank, I really enjoy your contest reports. I am terribly
> disappointed in whoever at SSA decided to censor your writeups. I could
> understand someone posting a contrasting view, but censorship is simply
> uncalled for.
> --
> wallace berry

The decision to change the designated reporter for the SSA website
reports was taken by the contest management, not the SSA.
Although I personally disagree with this decision, it is within the
purview of the on-site contest management to decide who posts to the
SSA website.
QT
Rules Committee

Tuno

July 26th 11, 02:38 AM

> Although I personally disagree with this decision, it is within the
> purview of the on-site contest management to decide who posts to the
> SSA website.
> QT
> Rules Committee

And as reported by Ken Sorenson, "Logan, UT contests have apparently
elected to change reporters at the contest".

All that is clear, and no argument from me, but none of it explains
why SSA removed the old posts. I would like to know why that
additional step was taken.

2NO

John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]

July 26th 11, 02:57 AM

On Jul 25, 9:38*pm, Tuno > wrote:
> > Although I personally disagree with this decision, it is within the
> > purview of the on-site contest management to decide who posts to the
> > SSA website.
> > QT
> > Rules Committee
>
> And as reported by Ken Sorenson, "Logan, UT contests have apparently
> elected to change reporters at the contest".
>
> All that is clear, and no argument from me, but none of it explains
> why SSA removed the old posts. I would like to know why that
> additional step was taken.
>
> 2NO

Removing the posts is available and under control of the contest
management. So you can't tell whether it was the SSA or the contest
management.

Andy[_10_]

July 26th 11, 04:09 AM

On Jul 25, 6:38*pm, Tuno > wrote:
> > Although I personally disagree with this decision, it is within the
> > purview of the on-site contest management to decide who posts to the
> > SSA website.
> > QT
> > Rules Committee
>
> And as reported by Ken Sorenson, "Logan, UT contests have apparently
> elected to change reporters at the contest".
>
> All that is clear, and no argument from me, but none of it explains
> why SSA removed the old posts. I would like to know why that
> additional step was taken.
>
> 2NO

On censorship:
It's up to the organizers to select the individual to post daily
contest reports. They are within their rights to change writers or
even delete posts - though it doesn't look good when they do. When
you ask someone who injects color and personal opinion into his
writing to post on behalf of the contest organizers, then have some
marginal days with intimidating flying you are going to get the
obvious injection of perspective to the commentary.

On Logan as a site:
I broke my beloved -27B landing in barley in a mountain valley on Day
2 of the 15M nationals. I made all the decisions myself and live with
the consequences. In the end if I had flown about 2 miles farther
away from landable fields I likely would have made it home, but I
didn't feel comfortable with the all-or-nothing proposition that
appeared to represent at the time.

Logan is a very technical site and that fact is particularly apparent
when the top of lift is 10,000' or lower. The spread in the scores,
large numbers of outlandings and significant numbers of withdrawals -
along with a couple of broken gliders - all stand as evidence of how
challenging the flying can be.

The challenges this year at logan fall into three broad categories:
1) The lift starts on the late side - generally after 2pm. It might go
on until 7:30, but sometimes it doesn't. This makes it challenging to
get a 4-hour Nationals task in when you account for launching all the
gliders and giving them time to climb up. Yesterday's task shows the
challenge of getting a 3 1/2 hour task in.

2) Climbing out is a challenge. The Logan ridge is 10,000 feet high
and 4-5 miles from the airport. It's a steep series of ridges and
canyons and you really have to rack it up (but not past 45-50 degrees
or your circle get's bigger not smaller - shockingly even experienced
pilots forget this). You have to work your way from one spur to the
next and when you get to the top you have about a 1,000- foot working
band before you are below the ridge tops and have to start over.
Better weather make this less of a challenge, but in 10 days there
this was the case every day this year. This year we towed to 2,500
feet to try to give pilots a better chance to get a climb, bit it
exacerbates #1 when you spend the additional 25-30% in timer per tow.

3) Ridge transitions are the name of the game. There is not reliable
lift in the valleys so you fly ridge to ridge. Given the nature of the
terrain you may ridge soar or choose thermals in the high ground. When
the top of lift is low you have to do both - climb up on one ridge and
dive to the next one, ridge soar upon arrival until you can find a
thermal - or ridge run for a bit.

4) There are broad swaths of terrain in the contest areas that are
unattractive, either because they are in marine air, filled with water
or made of lava (hardened, not molten), among other things. This is
true of many sites to one degree or another. Most problem areas were
briefed at various pilots' meetings. If you combine #4 with #3 you get
areas like where I got into trouble where you need the ridge to work
our are faced with a 15-mile glide to landable spots. When the lift
doesn't go very high you end up with what amounts to a 500-1,000'
working band. In my case I decided to glide toward the fields to play
it safe but with the air running down instead of up in the valleys my
achieved L/D was cut in half - 23:1 instead of 48:1 according to
SeeYou. Which brings me to the final point...

5) It's mountain flying. Mountains are big geographic features that
can have a big impact on the local weather conditions. Large areas of
lift and sink that you might not find in the flatlands are the main
things to think about. It's all the more critical when you are flying
low-level.

To me all of this adds up to a need to do a lot of homework when going
to fly at a place like Logan. If the conditions are strong you likely
have enough margin to mask many of the challenges, but when you are
among, rather than above, the mountains you need to take care.

It's a beautiful place with a great airport and a supportive
community. I'd go again - I've already made a big investment in
learning about how to fly there.

9B

Andy[_10_]

July 26th 11, 04:42 AM

On Jul 25, 8:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 25, 6:38*pm, Tuno > wrote:
>
> > > Although I personally disagree with this decision, it is within the
> > > purview of the on-site contest management to decide who posts to the
> > > SSA website.
> > > QT
> > > Rules Committee
>
> > And as reported by Ken Sorenson, "Logan, UT contests have apparently
> > elected to change reporters at the contest".
>
> > All that is clear, and no argument from me, but none of it explains
> > why SSA removed the old posts. I would like to know why that
> > additional step was taken.
>
> > 2NO
>
> On censorship:
> It's up to the organizers to select the individual to post daily
> contest reports. *They are within their rights to change writers or
> even delete posts - though it doesn't look good when they do. *When
> you ask someone who injects color and personal opinion into his
> writing to post on behalf of the contest organizers, then have some
> marginal days with intimidating flying you are going to get the
> obvious injection of perspective to the commentary.
>
> On Logan as a site:
> I broke my beloved -27B landing in barley in a mountain valley on Day
> 2 of the 15M nationals. I made all the decisions myself and live with
> the consequences. *In the end if I had flown about 2 miles farther
> away from landable fields I likely would have made it home, but I
> didn't feel comfortable with the all-or-nothing proposition that
> appeared to represent at the time.
>
> Logan is a very technical site and that fact is particularly apparent
> when the top of lift is 10,000' or lower. *The spread in the scores,
> large numbers of outlandings and significant numbers of withdrawals -
> along with a couple of broken gliders - all stand as evidence of how
> challenging the flying can be.
>
> The challenges this year at logan fall into three broad categories:
> 1) The lift starts on the late side - generally after 2pm. It might go
> on until 7:30, but sometimes it doesn't. *This makes it challenging to
> get a 4-hour Nationals task in when you account for launching all the
> gliders and giving them time to climb up. Yesterday's task shows the
> challenge of getting a 3 1/2 hour task in.
>
> 2) Climbing out is a challenge. The Logan ridge is 10,000 feet high
> and 4-5 miles from the airport. *It's a steep series of ridges and
> canyons and you really have to rack it up (but not past 45-50 degrees
> or your circle get's bigger not smaller - shockingly even experienced
> pilots forget this). You have to work your way from one spur to the
> next and when you get to the top you have about a 1,000- foot working
> band before you are below the ridge tops and have to start over.
> Better weather make this less of a challenge, but in 10 days there
> this was the case every day this year. This year we towed to 2,500
> feet to try to give pilots a better chance to get a climb, bit it
> exacerbates #1 when you spend the additional 25-30% in timer per tow.
>
> 3) Ridge transitions are the name of the game. There is not reliable
> lift in the valleys so you fly ridge to ridge. Given the nature of the
> terrain you may ridge soar or choose thermals in the high ground. When
> the top of lift is low you have to do both - climb up on one ridge and
> dive to the next one, ridge soar upon arrival until you can find a
> thermal - or ridge run for a bit.
>
> 4) There are broad swaths of terrain in the contest areas that are
> unattractive, either because they are in marine air, filled with water
> or made of lava (hardened, not molten), among other things. This is
> true of many sites to one degree or another. Most problem areas were
> briefed at various pilots' meetings. If you combine #4 with #3 you get
> areas like where I got into trouble where you need the ridge to work
> our are faced with a 15-mile glide to landable spots. When the lift
> doesn't go very high you end up with what amounts to a 500-1,000'
> working band. In my case I decided to glide toward the fields to play
> it safe but with the air running down instead of up in the valleys my
> achieved L/D was cut in half - 23:1 instead of 48:1 according to
> SeeYou. Which brings me to the final point...
>
> 5) It's mountain flying. Mountains are big geographic features that
> can have a big impact on the local weather conditions. Large areas of
> lift and sink that you might not find in the flatlands are the main
> things to think about. It's all the more critical when you are flying
> low-level.
>
> To me all of this adds up to a need to do a lot of homework when going
> to fly at a place like Logan. *If the conditions are strong you likely
> have enough margin to mask many of the challenges, but when you are
> among, rather than above, the mountains you need to take care.
>
> It's a beautiful place with a great airport and a supportive
> community. I'd go again - I've already made a big investment in
> learning about how to fly there.
>
> 9B

Meant to say "five categories" - or in the words of Monty Python, "No
one expects the Spanish Inquisition!"

Ron Gleason

July 26th 11, 04:55 AM

On Jul 25, 9:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Jul 25, 6:38*pm, Tuno > wrote:
>
> > > Although I personally disagree with this decision, it is within the
> > > purview of the on-site contest management to decide who posts to the
> > > SSA website.
> > > QT
> > > Rules Committee
>
> > And as reported by Ken Sorenson, "Logan, UT contests have apparently
> > elected to change reporters at the contest".
>
> > All that is clear, and no argument from me, but none of it explains
> > why SSA removed the old posts. I would like to know why that
> > additional step was taken.
>
> > 2NO
>
> On censorship:
> It's up to the organizers to select the individual to post daily
> contest reports. *They are within their rights to change writers or
> even delete posts - though it doesn't look good when they do. *When
> you ask someone who injects color and personal opinion into his
> writing to post on behalf of the contest organizers, then have some
> marginal days with intimidating flying you are going to get the
> obvious injection of perspective to the commentary.
>
> On Logan as a site:
> I broke my beloved -27B landing in barley in a mountain valley on Day
> 2 of the 15M nationals. I made all the decisions myself and live with
> the consequences. *In the end if I had flown about 2 miles farther
> away from landable fields I likely would have made it home, but I
> didn't feel comfortable with the all-or-nothing proposition that
> appeared to represent at the time.
>
> Logan is a very technical site and that fact is particularly apparent
> when the top of lift is 10,000' or lower. *The spread in the scores,
> large numbers of outlandings and significant numbers of withdrawals -
> along with a couple of broken gliders - all stand as evidence of how
> challenging the flying can be.
>
> The challenges this year at logan fall into three broad categories:
> 1) The lift starts on the late side - generally after 2pm. It might go
> on until 7:30, but sometimes it doesn't. *This makes it challenging to
> get a 4-hour Nationals task in when you account for launching all the
> gliders and giving them time to climb up. Yesterday's task shows the
> challenge of getting a 3 1/2 hour task in.
>
> 2) Climbing out is a challenge. The Logan ridge is 10,000 feet high
> and 4-5 miles from the airport. *It's a steep series of ridges and
> canyons and you really have to rack it up (but not past 45-50 degrees
> or your circle get's bigger not smaller - shockingly even experienced
> pilots forget this). You have to work your way from one spur to the
> next and when you get to the top you have about a 1,000- foot working
> band before you are below the ridge tops and have to start over.
> Better weather make this less of a challenge, but in 10 days there
> this was the case every day this year. This year we towed to 2,500
> feet to try to give pilots a better chance to get a climb, bit it
> exacerbates #1 when you spend the additional 25-30% in timer per tow.
>
> 3) Ridge transitions are the name of the game. There is not reliable
> lift in the valleys so you fly ridge to ridge. Given the nature of the
> terrain you may ridge soar or choose thermals in the high ground. When
> the top of lift is low you have to do both - climb up on one ridge and
> dive to the next one, ridge soar upon arrival until you can find a
> thermal - or ridge run for a bit.
>
> 4) There are broad swaths of terrain in the contest areas that are
> unattractive, either because they are in marine air, filled with water
> or made of lava (hardened, not molten), among other things. This is
> true of many sites to one degree or another. Most problem areas were
> briefed at various pilots' meetings. If you combine #4 with #3 you get
> areas like where I got into trouble where you need the ridge to work
> our are faced with a 15-mile glide to landable spots. When the lift
> doesn't go very high you end up with what amounts to a 500-1,000'
> working band. In my case I decided to glide toward the fields to play
> it safe but with the air running down instead of up in the valleys my
> achieved L/D was cut in half - 23:1 instead of 48:1 according to
> SeeYou. Which brings me to the final point...
>
> 5) It's mountain flying. Mountains are big geographic features that
> can have a big impact on the local weather conditions. Large areas of
> lift and sink that you might not find in the flatlands are the main
> things to think about. It's all the more critical when you are flying
> low-level.
>
> To me all of this adds up to a need to do a lot of homework when going
> to fly at a place like Logan. *If the conditions are strong you likely
> have enough margin to mask many of the challenges, but when you are
> among, rather than above, the mountains you need to take care.
>
> It's a beautiful place with a great airport and a supportive
> community. I'd go again - I've already made a big investment in
> learning about how to fly there.
>
> 9B

Frank was never asked by the contest management to be the reporter for
the contest therefore we did not change reporters.

Tim Taylor

July 26th 11, 06:45 AM

Posts to the SSA contest page are permanent parts of contest
reporting. The Logan contest management expected that material posted
to the official webpage would be factual. While blogs may embellish
or exaggerate to make the material more interesting, it is important
to provide true statements on the official website that do not mislead
readers. Unfortunately the posts to the website had misleading
statements that were beyond mild exaggeration. The statement that led
to the removal of the posts was from the Day Three report (July 22,
2011):

“As it turned out, a huge cloud street set up well to our north over
Sherman Peak running horizon to horizon east-northeast to west-
southwest that ran right through the 15m task area. ”All” we had to
do was get to Sherman Peak, connect with the street, run it for 80
miles out over completely unlandable (and uninhabited) terrain, turn
around and get home, and all but one 15m pilot was able to do this in
some fashion or another.”

While the statement makes for sensational reading and from the
comments on RAS many believed it; unfortunately it was misleading and
was well beyond exaggeration for effect. After reviewing Frank’s
flight for that day (July 21st), it is evident that he was never more
than eight miles from landable fields and this was at flight altitudes
of 4500 to 9000 feet agl. You can download his KML file from the OLC
and review it in Google Earth. Please notice both the many
communities, farms, airports and landable fields he and the rest of
the competitors flew over. You can review my July 3rd flight where I
landed in the flight zone of the July 21st contest flight to see that
many of the fields that are not green are also landable. Almost every
valley in the flight area is filled with landable fields. In general,
most of the tasking area in Logan has many airports and landable
fields in all quadrants. It is one of the safest mountain sites that
I have ever flown at and I have received similar comments from top
pilots that have flown at Logan. It is somewhat intimidating to the
new pilots that are not familiar with mountain flying, but those that
embrace it come away excited about the possibilities and find they
approach their flying in a different way after the experience. I
encourage the readers here to do their due diligence and review flight
logs and tasks in Google Earth before believing everything they read
in blogs and RAS.

The Logan contest management felt that while it was perfectly fine for
Frank or any other blogger to write their opinions, they should not be
posted as part of the official website. There were also many other
bloggers at the contest and this leads to the question of how best to
provide easy access to all bloggers without officially endorsing
them. The best solution was to remove the posts and provide links to
Frank’s and others’ blogs as part of the official daily report.
Readers can easily link to the blogs and it provides a clear
separation from the official report.

Tim Taylor

Ken Sorenson

July 26th 11, 02:37 PM

Ted,

My understanding is that the contest organizer, who has responsibility for
the contest reports, asked the SSA webmaster to remove the reports, which he
did. The decision to remove the reports was made by the contest organizer. A
posting elsewhere in this thread by Tim Taylor explains their rationale.

As you know from your own experience as a contest organizer, putting on a
contest is a huge amount of work, usually done entirely by a small group of
volunteers. Those of us who are privileged to fly these contests really
appreciate the effort put in by all contest organizers, however imperfect
they may seem at times. It has become increasingly difficult to find the
volunteers needed to host, organize, and run contests. Hopefully the folks
who have become wound up over the handling of Frank's entertaining reports
will give the contest organizers, and the SSA volunteers, the benefit of the
doubt on this matter. The last thing we can afford to do is to run off the
few SSA volunteers and contest organizers we have. There is no "them", its
just "us".

Ken Sorenson

"Tuno" > wrote in message
...
>> Although I personally disagree with this decision, it is within the
>> purview of the on-site contest management to decide who posts to the
>> SSA website.
>> QT
>> Rules Committee
>
> And as reported by Ken Sorenson, "Logan, UT contests have apparently
> elected to change reporters at the contest".
>
> All that is clear, and no argument from me, but none of it explains
> why SSA removed the old posts. I would like to know why that
> additional step was taken.
>
> 2NO

Ron Gleason

July 26th 11, 03:22 PM

On Jul 26, 7:37*am, "Ken Sorenson" > wrote:
> Ted,
>
> My understanding is that the contest organizer, who has responsibility for
> the contest reports, asked the SSA webmaster to remove the reports, which he
> did. The decision to remove the reports was made by the contest organizer.. A
> posting elsewhere in this thread by Tim Taylor explains their rationale.
>
> As you know from your own experience as a contest organizer, putting on a
> contest is a huge amount of work, usually done entirely by a small group of
> volunteers. Those of us who are privileged to fly these contests really
> appreciate the effort put in by all contest organizers, however imperfect
> they may seem at times. It has become increasingly difficult to find the
> volunteers needed to host, organize, and run contests. Hopefully the folks
> who have become wound up over the handling of Frank's entertaining reports
> will give the contest organizers, and the SSA volunteers, the benefit of the
> doubt on this matter. The last thing we can afford to do is to run off the
> few SSA volunteers and contest organizers we have. *There is no "them", its
> just "us".
>
> Ken Sorenson
>
> "Tuno" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >> Although I personally disagree with this decision, it is within the
> >> purview of the on-site contest management to decide who posts to the
> >> SSA website.
> >> QT
> >> Rules Committee
>
> > And as reported by Ken Sorenson, "Logan, UT contests have apparently
> > elected to change reporters at the contest".
>
> > All that is clear, and no argument from me, but none of it explains
> > why SSA removed the old posts. I would like to know why that
> > additional step was taken.
>
> > 2NO

2NO,

The removal of the reports we done by the contest organizers, in fact
I performed the actions after ALL of the contest organizations agreed
to the action. There was no involvement by anyone at the SSA. We
understood the risks of our decision and actions.

Ron Gleason

Tuno

July 26th 11, 06:33 PM

Thank you Ron and Ken (and Tim) -- I am fine with all of these
explanations. It just strikes me as a bit extreme that the posts were
removed.

While I have experience as a contest organizer and manager, my
sensitivity on this topic stems from much longer experience as a field
reporter in sanctioned contests (both USPA and FAI). I wasn't in Logan
of course, and I don't mean to second-guess the organizer's actions,
but if I was doing the field reports and the organizer didn't like
them, I hope I'd be given the opportunity to make a correction, as
opposed to being censored! That just makes everybody look bad.

2NO (suffering from lack-of-flying syndrome ... and looking forward to
flying at Logan someday)

noel.wade

July 27th 11, 01:46 AM

On Jul 25, 8:09*pm, Andy > wrote:
>
> To me all of this adds up to a need to do a lot of homework when going
> to fly at a place like Logan. *If the conditions are strong you likely
> have enough margin to mask many of the challenges, but when you are
> among, rather than above, the mountains you need to take care.
>
> It's a beautiful place with a great airport and a supportive
> community. I'd go again - I've already made a big investment in
> learning about how to fly there.
>

As someone who flew Logan both last year and this year, I wanted to
add a couple of things to Andy's thoughtful post:

My big takeaway from the contest (at least during the Regionals week)
was that Logan was a more challenging place to fly this year than
"normal". Mostly it was bad timing on the part of the weather Gods -
but there were a lot of things, including:
1) Weaker lift during a period of intense glider activity, especially
with folks who were keen to carry a lot of water and fly hard.
2) Somewhat lower lift heights than last year
3) A bad winter causing crops to be "behind schedule" in being
harvested, slightly reducing the landout options a bit
4) Contest organizers wanting to make sure that a very large field of
aircraft had enough time to get organized and ready. Coupled with the
late days this meant baking on the tarmac for 2 hours every day;
something that I think contributed to fatigue, concentration, and
frustration levels (especially after launch while crawling up the
ridge in groups).
5) A very large and diverse set of pilots, including a lot of people
who aren't used to mountain flying and didn't seem to be comfortable
with key aspects of such flying (including when to "change gears" to
fly conservatively, and planning ahead to ensure that you stop soaring
with enough altitude left to reach a landout field that may be a few
miles from your position).

I've got some minor quibbles (such as the backup tasking that others
have mentioned); but overall I think the contest staff did the best
they could, including many safety briefings, strategy tips, and "data-
dumps" by local experts gathered around big maps and slide-show
presentations. Scoring was handled very promptly and openly. Karl S
was a stern-but-reasonable CD while I was there. And although I had
some frustrating days myself, I *like* the fact that this was a
challenge (for both the Regional pilots and the Nats competitors). As
I've said before: in my opinion there's a big difference between a
"fun-fly" and a contest; especially when we're talking about National
Championships!

One last thing: I've seen and heard so much about the "unlandable"
terrain around Logan, on this message group and other places. I am
not trying to make a personal attack on those folks; but do people
talk the same way about Montague? Parowan? Or (most of) Nevada? How
about soaring in the Alps or New Zealand (which most pilots talk about
whilst drooling)? It seems to me that anywhere you fly there are
going to be unlandable areas. I was taught that part of soaring is
learning to either avoid those areas, or to cease soaring and deviate
to landable terrain when you get below a safe altitude. As long as
proper judgement is used, unlandable terrain isn't necessarily
_unsafe_ terrain. And while I have full sympathy and respect for the
pilots who damaged their gliders, I'd like to point out that it wasn't
the youngest pilots or least-experienced contestants at Logan who got
into trouble - so its not like baby lambs were being led to slaughter
(I consider myself one of those baby lambs, since this was just my 5th
contest and I only have ~300 hrs in gliders). OK, OK, I'll get off the
soap-box...

Hope to see you all at future contests!

--Noel

Moe[_2_]

July 29th 11, 02:55 AM

On Jul 23, 5:20*pm, Frank Paynter > wrote:
> I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
> posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
> reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. *Apparently I was
> using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. *I
> freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
> perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
> point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
> and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).

Forrest Gump: "Momma says Stupid is as Stupid does." It's obvious
from the feedback that most enjoy your reporting. Thanks and keep it
up soaring and reporting-wise.

Scott Alexander[_2_]

August 6th 11, 06:41 PM

On Jul 23, 11:58*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:

"Based on my experience of flying out west, 2 out of 60 is pretty much
par for a contest."

Mike, I'm sure you will agree with me that 2 accidents is 2 too many.

All, what are we doing in this sport to prevent this from happening
again? It really makes me sick to my stomach to see contestants
demolish their gliders only to have it hushed up by contest
management. Seeing people get hurt or killed in contests lowers the
participation rate. We need to hear about the accidents in order to
learn a lesson!! I personally know two pilots who quit flying in
contests when they watched a glider cartwheel end over end landing in
an unlandable field. Yet, the contest report for that day said
nothing regarding the accident and just showed a W, F for Withdrew
from contest and Flight log.

If someone says a task was called over 80 miles of unlandable terrain,
yet another pilot claims there's always a suitable field within 8
miles of the course line, then why aren't these suitable fields being
entered into the turnpoint database? Situational awareness would
greatly improve if you got low and could see the distance, direction
and altituded needed to find this suitable field.

Looking at the turnpoint database for Logan, it shows lots of mountain
peaks for turnpoints. Nobody needs glide navigation into mountain
peaks. Pilots need glide navigation into suitable fields. How about
using actual suitable landing areas for turnpoints? We're not taking
pictures of easily identifiable turnpoints with Kodak cameras
anymore!! Maybe our accident ratio of 2 out of 60, would be much much
lower if people had these suitable fields marked on their GPS.

I love this sport and hate to hear of accidents happening.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

August 6th 11, 11:25 PM

On 8/6/2011 10:41 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
> On Jul 23, 11:58 pm, Mike the Strike<Stringm...@msn. We're not taking
> pictures of easily identifiable turnpoints with Kodak cameras
> anymore!! Maybe our accident ratio of 2 out of 60, would be much much
> lower if people had these suitable fields marked on their GPS.

I think it would be nightmare for contest management to provide a list
of "suitable fields" over which they have no control, that are not
controlled by any authority, and are privately owned.

Even setting aside the legal issues, what criteria should be used for a
suitable field? The range of ability and ships means some fields will
not be suitable for everyone. Who determines the field is still suitable
each day of the contest? A field can fine one day and full of cattle the
next, a fence is installed, sprinklers moved, hay bales moved in for
storage, and so on.

Pilots can and should be warned of local hazards, and they are already
made of aware of places like dry lakes that are known quantities that
won't change, but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
or even during the day.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

BobW

August 7th 11, 02:20 AM

On 8/6/2011 11:41 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:

> All, what are we doing in this sport to prevent this from happening
> again? It really makes me sick to my stomach to see contestants
> demolish their gliders only to have it hushed up by contest
> management.

"Indeed!" as to your question. As Tom Knauff has bluntly pointed out on this
group a number of times - and a point with which I generally agree ==>IF<==
the 'finger of blame' pointed at pilots choosing, as Tom has put it, not to
'upgrade their proficiency' ALSO includes their underlying attitudes (which
need to be examined by pilots, and, adjusted or acted upon as sober reflection
concludes) - the vast majority of sailplane accidents are not 'surprises'
thrown at pilots by the Fickle Finger of Fate, but weaker and weaker links of
chains that eventually break. To conclude pilots - skills and attitudes - are
not an active part of the chain is 'comfortingly delusional' ('comfortingly'
so until the 'inevitable' accident, that is).

And, "I agree completely," with the 'hushed up' sentiment, though I don't
limit my dissatisfaction to only contest management. Writing as a person who
(decades ago) had an accident that ended up in "Soaring" magazine (very
inaccurately, due in part to my youthful diffidence/reluctance to contribute
my own narrative of a still-painful-in-mind situation), I contributed that
time to the silence. Effectively, as a non-contributor, I 'hushed up' an
accident I know would have been of intense interest to a number of fellow SSA
members. Shame on me.

Using Logan as today's current example, Serious Kudos go to Andy Blackburn for
sharing sufficient of the circumstances of his, glider-breaking, off-field
groundloop on RAS, for any mildly savvy (even wannabe) XC pilot to sensibly
conclude how his decision(s) led to a busted glider.

For those who happened to miss his post, I took away that he'd left himself a
the off-field choice of landing in a tallish barley field. Definitely a
smooth, reasonably level surface, but also definitely one with 'known glider
busting' obstacles, i.e. 'the tallish crop.' FWIW, I concluded decades ago
that landing in ANY field that had a high probability of snagging a wingtip
with 'something' (e.g. barley, weeds, grass, etc.) was rolling the dice
insofar as being able to fly the same T-tailed, glass glider tomorrow. (Anyone
interested in learning more about *why* I concluded that, feel free to start
another thread...)

Silence is definitely not golden, when it comes to learning from others'
sailplane mistakes.

We need to hear about the accidents in order to
> learn a lesson!! I personally know two pilots who quit flying in
> contests when they watched a glider cartwheel end over end landing in
> an unlandable field. Yet, the contest report for that day said
> nothing regarding the accident and just showed a W, F for Withdrew
> from contest and Flight log.

Not to belabor the point, but imagine yourself in the position of 'contest
management'. How and when would you go about 'learning the details' of such a
crunch? (And let's not even consider the U.S.-centric phobia of being sued...)
Whose responsibility is it...not only the creating of the crunch, but the
disseminating of first-hand information (always the best, if it's available)?
Using your example, if no first-hand information was 'reasonably obtainable,'
who was in the better position to begin disseminating second-hand information,
the two eyewitnesses or contest management? Sure the latter had a handy
'pulpit,' but in today's world, the former are far from bereft of their own
pulpits. The point I'm hoping to emphasize is that SOMEone needs to step up,
bite the bullet, and 'be brave' about trying to disseminate 'possibly
actionable data' about accidents to the interested folks in the soaring
community. We know the NTSB is neither interested, staffed, nor capable of
doing it, 'contest management' has some obvious obstacles, so I conclude it's
really up to the soaring community at large. That might just mean you or me,
depending on circumstances. (Arm twisting by 'you or me' of pilots who've
broken their gliders is permitted, of course...)

The GOOD news is that - IMHO - the vast majority of soaring accidents (80+%?)
are repetitive 'poor judgment based'. Obviously, that's not good for the
parties involved, but it's 'good' to the rest of us who are interested in NOT
making similar mistakes, if we're honest with ourselves about 'a likely chain
of events' that might have led up to 'the bad judgment.' For example, how many
readers are as ready to land their T-tailed glass glider in a field with
'tallish growth' now as before reading this post? Why? (Again, this might be a
topic worth batting about under another thread, because - I will argue - XC
pilots who ARE 'comfortable/OK-with' doing so are also significantly more
likely to one day break their own glider than those who are not. In any event,
it's a pilot's *choice* to use those sort of fields, not an inevitability.)

It's the relatively smaller percentage of non 'stupid-pilot trick' accidents
that remain of intense personal interest, simply because, with today's
knowledge, in those are the accident categories I consider myself most likely
to futurely participate. However, somewhere and somewhen along the line, I had
to *learn* this conclusion. I did it only by scouring "Soaring," aviation
magazines, and the NTSB reports (and, in online days, their database). Hence
the very real value of pilots sharing their mistakes...through whatever venue
available to them. I thank them all, alive or not.

>
> If someone says a task was called over 80 miles of unlandable terrain,
> yet another pilot claims there's always a suitable field within 8
> miles of the course line, then why aren't these suitable fields being
> entered into the turnpoint database? Situational awareness would
> greatly improve if you got low and could see the distance, direction
> and altituded needed to find this suitable field.

"What Eric Greenwell said." Whose responsibility is it to 'properly assess'
fields over which contest (really, any) sailplane pilots are flying? (Correct
answer: Joe Pilot.)

To conjure up an extreme example hoping to better illustrate 'where I'm coming
from' on this, imagine me as CD calling tasks over completely unlandable
terrain at some contest (whether unbroken forests, virgin Arizona desert,
whatever...). Sure, I'd be advertising myself as (choose what applies: an
idiot, a jerk, a power-mad autocrat, an ***hole, etc., etc. etc.), but: 1) I
can't *force* competing pilots to go out on course; 2) any pilot could
individually 'vote with his feet' and choose to not participate; 3) pilots
could band together and do the same/tar-and-feather me/demand their money back
from the organizers/etc.; 4) (here, be imaginative!). Years ago, I remember
seeing in "Soaring" magazine a statement attributed to CD Karl Striedieck to
the effect: I should be able to call a task anywhere in the (eastern, in this
case) contest area and expect you folks to be able to safely fly it,
regardless of weather. Reportedly, this was by way of cutting off at the knees
'pilot whining' at his task calling. True or not, and ignoring the 'fairness'
of a contest called with that philosophy in mind, I agreed than and now with
the reported philosophy.

>
> Looking at the turnpoint database for Logan, it shows lots of mountain
> peaks for turnpoints. Nobody needs glide navigation into mountain
> peaks. Pilots need glide navigation into suitable fields. How about
> using actual suitable landing areas for turnpoints? We're not taking
> pictures of easily identifiable turnpoints with Kodak cameras
> anymore!! Maybe our accident ratio of 2 out of 60, would be much much
> lower if people had these suitable fields marked on their GPS.
>
> I love this sport and hate to hear of accidents happening.

We're in 100% agreement on that last sentence!!!

Respectfully,
Bob - mindset matters! - W.

Buba Smith

August 8th 11, 07:55 AM

On Jul 25, 11:45*pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> Posts to the SSA contest page are permanent parts of contest
> reporting. *The Logan contest management expected that material posted
> to the official webpage would be factual. *While blogs may embellish
> or exaggerate to make the material more interesting, it is important
> to provide true statements on the official website that do not mislead
> readers. *Unfortunately the posts to the website had misleading
> statements that were beyond mild exaggeration. *The statement that led
> to the removal of the posts was from the Day Three report (July 22,
> 2011):
>
> “As it turned out, a huge cloud street set up well to our north over
> Sherman Peak running horizon to horizon east-northeast to west-
> southwest that ran right through the 15m task area. *”All” we had to
> do was get to Sherman Peak, connect with the street, run it for 80
> miles out over completely unlandable (and uninhabited) terrain, turn
> around and get home, and all but one 15m pilot was able to do this in
> some fashion or another.”
>
> While the statement makes for sensational reading and from the
> comments on RAS many believed it; unfortunately it was misleading and
> was well beyond exaggeration for effect. *After reviewing Frank’s
> flight for that day (July 21st), it is evident that he was never more
> than eight miles from landable fields and this was at flight altitudes
> of 4500 to 9000 feet agl. *You can download his KML file from the OLC
> and review it in Google Earth. Please notice both the many
> communities, farms, airports and landable fields he and the rest of
> the competitors flew over. *You can review my July 3rd flight where I
> landed in the flight zone of the July 21st contest flight to see that
> many of the fields that are not green are also landable. *Almost every
> valley in the flight area is filled with landable fields. *In general,
> most of the tasking area in Logan has many airports and landable
> fields in all quadrants. *It is one of the safest mountain sites that
> I have ever flown at and I have received similar comments from top
> pilots that have flown at Logan. *It is somewhat intimidating to the
> new pilots that are not familiar with mountain flying, but those that
> embrace it come away excited about the possibilities and find they
> approach their flying in a different way after the experience. *I
> encourage the readers here to do their due diligence and review flight
> logs and tasks in Google Earth before believing everything they read
> in blogs and RAS.
>
> The Logan contest management felt that while it was perfectly fine for
> Frank or any other blogger to write their opinions, they should not be
> posted as part of the official website. *There were also many other
> bloggers at the contest and this leads to the question of how best to
> provide easy access to all bloggers without officially endorsing
> them. *The best solution was to remove the posts and provide links to
> Frank’s and others’ blogs as part of the official daily report.
> Readers can easily link to the blogs and it provides a clear
> separation from the official report.
>
> Tim Taylor

Tim ,
I am amused and amazed by your response . While doing my " Due
diligence " it got me wondering how often Google earth is updated ( IE
to show things like crop height , damage from an excessive winter
snowfall , single wire powerlines , etc ) . Second , I welcome your
opinion but please don't express it as fact . Ive flown nothing but
mountain sites in my gliding career and there is nothing safe about
some of the dubious terrain pilots had to fly over to complete tasks
in Logan . Nothing safe about packing close to 60 gliders and 5
towplanes at the same altitudes along a mile and a half stretch of
ridge either . For the contest management to sterilize the news from
Logan was probably not the best course of action . In many of the
attendees opinions the criticism was justified and it should have been
dealt with and put behind us .
Here is another way to look at it ; A contest can be run in such a
manner that it encourages participation and stresses safety or it can
be run in such a manner that only a small handfull of participants
finish tasks and want to come back . http://soaringcafe.com/2011/08/thoughts-on-the-logan-15m-nationals/
A sad day for Utah soaring :( . I hope that if there is another
contest at Logan next year things will go better . I am a big fan of
soaring in Northern Utah and Ill do anything I can to help .
r4

Buba Smith

August 8th 11, 07:47 PM

On Jul 25, 11:45*pm, Tim Taylor > wrote:
> Posts to the SSA contest page are permanent parts of contest
> reporting. *The Logan contest management expected that material posted
> to the official webpage would be factual. *While blogs may embellish
> or exaggerate to make the material more interesting, it is important
> to provide true statements on the official website that do not mislead
> readers. *Unfortunately the posts to the website had misleading
> statements that were beyond mild exaggeration. *The statement that led
> to the removal of the posts was from the Day Three report (July 22,
> 2011):
>
> “As it turned out, a huge cloud street set up well to our north over
> Sherman Peak running horizon to horizon east-northeast to west-
> southwest that ran right through the 15m task area. *”All” we had to
> do was get to Sherman Peak, connect with the street, run it for 80
> miles out over completely unlandable (and uninhabited) terrain, turn
> around and get home, and all but one 15m pilot was able to do this in
> some fashion or another.”
>
> While the statement makes for sensational reading and from the
> comments on RAS many believed it; unfortunately it was misleading and
> was well beyond exaggeration for effect. *After reviewing Frank’s
> flight for that day (July 21st), it is evident that he was never more
> than eight miles from landable fields and this was at flight altitudes
> of 4500 to 9000 feet agl. *You can download his KML file from the OLC
> and review it in Google Earth. Please notice both the many
> communities, farms, airports and landable fields he and the rest of
> the competitors flew over. *You can review my July 3rd flight where I
> landed in the flight zone of the July 21st contest flight to see that
> many of the fields that are not green are also landable. *Almost every
> valley in the flight area is filled with landable fields. *In general,
> most of the tasking area in Logan has many airports and landable
> fields in all quadrants. *It is one of the safest mountain sites that
> I have ever flown at and I have received similar comments from top
> pilots that have flown at Logan. *It is somewhat intimidating to the
> new pilots that are not familiar with mountain flying, but those that
> embrace it come away excited about the possibilities and find they
> approach their flying in a different way after the experience. *I
> encourage the readers here to do their due diligence and review flight
> logs and tasks in Google Earth before believing everything they read
> in blogs and RAS.
>
> The Logan contest management felt that while it was perfectly fine for
> Frank or any other blogger to write their opinions, they should not be
> posted as part of the official website. *There were also many other
> bloggers at the contest and this leads to the question of how best to
> provide easy access to all bloggers without officially endorsing
> them. *The best solution was to remove the posts and provide links to
> Frank’s and others’ blogs as part of the official daily report.
> Readers can easily link to the blogs and it provides a clear
> separation from the official report.
>
> Tim Taylor

Tim ,
While attempting some "Due Diligence " I began to wonder how often
Google Earth is updated . For example how can one determine crop
height from Google . Further , are the effects of a 600% snow pack
reflected ? I was surprised by the amount of water in the valley this
year . Can you make out livestock or single wire powerlines from
Google ?
Ive flown nothing but mountain sites my entire gliding career and
given the conditions , there was nothing safe about the tasks assigned
over unsafe terrain at your " Safest mountain site " or cramming
nearly 60 gliders and 5 towplanes on the same mile and a half stretch
of ridge at the same altitude .
The biggest mistake was for the contest management to ignore
criticisms from competitors and respond by attempting to sanitize the
contest reporting . This was probably not the best course of action .
Call me an optimist ( Or whatever you'd like to call me ;)) , but I
think a contest at Logan can be run in such a manner as to not scare
pilots away . I don't think this was quite the case in 2011 . Lets
hope that lessons have been learned and if there is a contest in 12 we
can put this all behind .
r4
http://soaringcafe.com/2011/08/thoughts-on-the-logan-15m-nationals/

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

August 9th 11, 03:56 AM

On 8/8/2011 11:47 AM, Buba Smith wrote:

> Tim ,
> While attempting some "Due Diligence " I began to wonder how often
> Google Earth is updated . For example how can one determine crop
> height from Google . Further , are the effects of a 600% snow pack
> reflected ? I was surprised by the amount of water in the valley this
> year . Can you make out livestock or single wire powerlines from
> Google ?

My observation is Google images can be over more than 5 years old, so
making serious decisions based on easily changed attributes (crops,
fences, livestock, sprinklers, power lines, etc) is too risky. I do use
it to measure widths and lengths when I see a runway that isn't on the
charts, just to back up my estimate from the air. The assumption is a
runway that I see every few months is not likely to change; of course,
they do sometimes disappear, or another one somewhere else appears, so I
do not count on them like I do municipal airports.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

noel.wade

August 10th 11, 06:38 PM

On Aug 8, 11:47*am, Buba Smith > wrote:

> there was nothing safe about the tasks assigned
> over unsafe terrain at your " Safest mountain site " or cramming
> nearly 60 gliders and 5 towplanes on the same mile and a half stretch
> of ridge at the same altitude .

"Buba" -

You are ignoring the facts (again). Launches were staggered and
contest classes were given different start-cylinder radii (up to 10
miles!!) so that they could spread out and avoid each other. 60
gliders were NOT forced into the same "half-mile" stretch of ridge at
all. During launches there were multiple gaggles up and down the
ridge from Smithfield Canyon to Logan Canyon, on the ridge and out in
front of it. And as people got above the ridge they spread out even
more. Every time I hit 9000' I dove for the ridge and ran from just
south of Sugar Creek to Naomi while waiting for the gate to open, and
that got me well away from the gaggles. Anyone could have done this
same thing if they wanted to (and several did).

As far as "unsafe" terrain... You claim to be a mountain-flyer.
ANYONE who has flown in the mountains has flown over lots of
unlandable terrain. Its called "the mountains" (themselves)! UNSAFE
terrain is a totally different animal. What makes terrain unsafe is
not just the slope, or the rocks, or the vegetation. The pilot's
attitude, planning, and judgement skills are critical components. The
CD and task-setters do NOT force the pilot to fly over specific
terrain. It is up to the pilots to choose their route. _Legally_,
pilots are responsible for the safety of their own flight (FAR 91.3).
Picking a route on a contest task is about more than just finding the
"green air". Terrain & safety should factor into the decision-making
process. During the Regionals, I personally was never more than 10
miles from a landable field, and when I was that far away from one I
was usually quite high - or I was working reliable lift (or both).
And lest anyone think that my choices somehow compromised my
competitiveness: I finished 4th overall out of 16 entrants in my
class, and were it not for a low finish one day I would have taken
2nd. I don't want to point at myself too much as an example of good
judgement (I make my fair share of bad decisions and goofs) - but I
want to illustrate that you can be fast *and* still be reasonably
safe.

Look, I'm a 300-hour glider pilot with less than 5 full seasons under
my belt. Logan 2011 was my 5th SSA contest ever. If the place was
that bad/scary/dangerous, how come I had no serious problems and was
able to make it around the (Regionals) task every day except for the
first (when massive thunderstorms downed almost the entire fleet)? I
wasn't just lucky: I got low in places, and on the first day I landed
out... Yet I didn't break my glider and I was never in danger of
putting it down in a nasty area because I planned ahead while I was
still high enough to take action. That's just part of mountain-
flying!

I HATE the fact that a group of 4 or 5 guys have taken it upon
themselves to tar and feather the Logan site, the contest management,
and (specifically) Tim. These are good people, good pilots, and they
had good intentions. There was no malicious action or devious
plotting. They freely shared their local information and repeatedly
warned pilots about trouble areas or ways to cross difficult terrain.
What more could they have done? They can't fly the damn glider for
someone else, or force them to make good decisions! Case in point:
One of the broken gliders flew 6+ miles into rising terrain while
losing altitude. The glider came to rest on a rocky slope near 6400'
elevation. If you look at Google Maps (via the OLC trace - its
online) you can see a highway running through a low slot (5500') that
the pilot could have used to turn back North and escape to lower
terrain (5000'). In fact, for those last 6 miles the contestant was
flying parallel the "escape route", just 1 mile to the east of it. I
am not saying any of this to be harsh on the pilot; I'm making the
point that this broken glider has NOTHING to do with the task that was
called or the contest staff, or even the site! When someone drives a
boat into a dock do we blame the dock? When a car runs off the road
and hits a house, to we blame the house or the bend in the road?

Lest you all think I'm being a Pollyanna, I will say that there are
some things about the contest I that I think could have been improved:
The tasks were based upon weather calls that were not always correct.
In defense of the contest staff we're also talking about a week in
which MOST of the USA was experiencing bizarre weather - including 119
degrees in Minnesota! When I was in Logan in 2010, weather was much
stronger and the tasks that were called would have been no problem if
the weather was just a touch better most days. Still, some different
weather forecast assumptions and a later grid-time would have been
appreciated, once we all caught on to the weather patterns that were
prevalent during the first week. I understand the reluctance to move
the grid-time later; conventional wisdom says its worse to miss an
early day or a chance for a big task - and before the contest people
were having success launching early... But at the same time there was
a cumulative toll being taken on pilots & crews (and staff) sitting
out in the sun day after day. I also agree that some (not all) of the
backup tasks were not well-thought-out. Sometimes reducing the
minimum time and using large turn radii can work; but not always. And
I think that in the future ANY contest staff should think hard about
trying to put on a Regionals & a Nats at the same time. I flew the
Regionals and would have hated not being able to compete; but I also
think that there were many people who showed up for the Regionals
simply because a Nationals was being held and they wanted to fly at
the same site. Some of them were not prepared for hard racing or for
mountain-flying, and the wide spread in performance and skill between
the top and bottom of the 60 entrants made life harder for the Staff
and some of the contestants. I think the staff did the best job that
they could, but I also think that a single contest would have allowed
more focus and reduced some of the complaints and problems (Note that
I don't think it would have prevented any of the broken aircraft or
altered the weather problems). And again - the passing of Charlie
"Lite" did not help matters. Whether or not you personally like the
contest staff members, you have to give them credit for working hard
to still put on a contest just a handful weeks after his passing.

And for the last time: This was not a Safari, Encampment, Fun-Fly, or
XC-camp. It was a _contest_. Primarily, it was a NATIONAL
CHAMPIONSHIP. Its *supposed* to be tough and challenging and require
good judgement and tough decisions and calculated risks. It was not
billed as a contest for beginners. It was not intended to be a place
where people come to fly their first contest. Some people have
complained about Logan in the context of getting "Joe Glider Pilot" to
come fly contests... But "Joe" was not the target audience! If you
want to get "Joe" out, do what we do in WA: Hold a mock-contest over a
3-day weekend, with mentors and seminars and short simple tasks in a
place with strong lift and non-threatening terrain. Don't dumb-down
National Championships or restrict which sites are considered for
major events, based on the misguided assumption that somehow you'll
increase participation by doing so.

And to anyone who's actually read this Novella all the way through:
Thanks! :-)

--Noel

Frank Whiteley

August 11th 11, 01:47 AM

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:38:28 -0700, noel.wade wrote:

> On Aug 8, 11:47Â*am, Buba Smith > wrote:
>
>> there was nothing safe about the tasks assigned over unsafe terrain at
>> your " Safest mountain site " or cramming nearly 60 gliders and 5
>> towplanes on the same mile and a half stretch of ridge at the same
>> altitude .
>
> "Buba" -
>
> You are ignoring the facts (again). Launches were staggered and contest
> classes were given different start-cylinder radii (up to 10 miles!!) so
> that they could spread out and avoid each other. 60 gliders were NOT
> forced into the same "half-mile" stretch of ridge at all. During
> launches there were multiple gaggles up and down the ridge from
> Smithfield Canyon to Logan Canyon, on the ridge and out in front of it.
> And as people got above the ridge they spread out even more. Every time
> I hit 9000' I dove for the ridge and ran from just south of Sugar Creek
> to Naomi while waiting for the gate to open, and that got me well away
> from the gaggles. Anyone could have done this same thing if they wanted
> to (and several did).
>
> As far as "unsafe" terrain... You claim to be a mountain-flyer. ANYONE
> who has flown in the mountains has flown over lots of unlandable
> terrain. Its called "the mountains" (themselves)! UNSAFE terrain is a
> totally different animal. What makes terrain unsafe is not just the
> slope, or the rocks, or the vegetation. The pilot's attitude, planning,
> and judgement skills are critical components. The CD and task-setters
> do NOT force the pilot to fly over specific terrain. It is up to the
> pilots to choose their route. _Legally_, pilots are responsible for the
> safety of their own flight (FAR 91.3). Picking a route on a contest task
> is about more than just finding the "green air". Terrain & safety
> should factor into the decision-making process. During the Regionals, I
> personally was never more than 10 miles from a landable field, and when
> I was that far away from one I was usually quite high - or I was working
> reliable lift (or both). And lest anyone think that my choices somehow
> compromised my competitiveness: I finished 4th overall out of 16
> entrants in my class, and were it not for a low finish one day I would
> have taken 2nd. I don't want to point at myself too much as an example
> of good judgement (I make my fair share of bad decisions and goofs) -
> but I want to illustrate that you can be fast *and* still be reasonably
> safe.
>
> Look, I'm a 300-hour glider pilot with less than 5 full seasons under my
> belt. Logan 2011 was my 5th SSA contest ever. If the place was that
> bad/scary/dangerous, how come I had no serious problems and was able to
> make it around the (Regionals) task every day except for the first (when
> massive thunderstorms downed almost the entire fleet)? I wasn't just
> lucky: I got low in places, and on the first day I landed out... Yet I
> didn't break my glider and I was never in danger of putting it down in a
> nasty area because I planned ahead while I was still high enough to take
> action. That's just part of mountain- flying!
>
> I HATE the fact that a group of 4 or 5 guys have taken it upon
> themselves to tar and feather the Logan site, the contest management,
> and (specifically) Tim. These are good people, good pilots, and they
> had good intentions. There was no malicious action or devious plotting.
> They freely shared their local information and repeatedly warned pilots
> about trouble areas or ways to cross difficult terrain. What more could
> they have done? They can't fly the damn glider for someone else, or
> force them to make good decisions! Case in point: One of the broken
> gliders flew 6+ miles into rising terrain while losing altitude. The
> glider came to rest on a rocky slope near 6400' elevation. If you look
> at Google Maps (via the OLC trace - its online) you can see a highway
> running through a low slot (5500') that the pilot could have used to
> turn back North and escape to lower terrain (5000'). In fact, for those
> last 6 miles the contestant was flying parallel the "escape route", just
> 1 mile to the east of it. I am not saying any of this to be harsh on
> the pilot; I'm making the point that this broken glider has NOTHING to
> do with the task that was called or the contest staff, or even the site!
> When someone drives a boat into a dock do we blame the dock? When a
> car runs off the road and hits a house, to we blame the house or the
> bend in the road?
>
> Lest you all think I'm being a Pollyanna, I will say that there are some
> things about the contest I that I think could have been improved:
> The tasks were based upon weather calls that were not always correct. In
> defense of the contest staff we're also talking about a week in which
> MOST of the USA was experiencing bizarre weather - including 119 degrees
> in Minnesota! When I was in Logan in 2010, weather was much stronger
> and the tasks that were called would have been no problem if the weather
> was just a touch better most days. Still, some different weather
> forecast assumptions and a later grid-time would have been appreciated,
> once we all caught on to the weather patterns that were prevalent during
> the first week. I understand the reluctance to move the grid-time
> later; conventional wisdom says its worse to miss an early day or a
> chance for a big task - and before the contest people were having
> success launching early... But at the same time there was a cumulative
> toll being taken on pilots & crews (and staff) sitting out in the sun
> day after day. I also agree that some (not all) of the backup tasks
> were not well-thought-out. Sometimes reducing the minimum time and
> using large turn radii can work; but not always. And I think that in
> the future ANY contest staff should think hard about trying to put on a
> Regionals & a Nats at the same time. I flew the Regionals and would
> have hated not being able to compete; but I also think that there were
> many people who showed up for the Regionals simply because a Nationals
> was being held and they wanted to fly at the same site. Some of them
> were not prepared for hard racing or for mountain-flying, and the wide
> spread in performance and skill between the top and bottom of the 60
> entrants made life harder for the Staff and some of the contestants. I
> think the staff did the best job that they could, but I also think that
> a single contest would have allowed more focus and reduced some of the
> complaints and problems (Note that I don't think it would have prevented
> any of the broken aircraft or altered the weather problems). And again
> - the passing of Charlie "Lite" did not help matters. Whether or not
> you personally like the contest staff members, you have to give them
> credit for working hard to still put on a contest just a handful weeks
> after his passing.
>
> And for the last time: This was not a Safari, Encampment, Fun-Fly, or
> XC-camp. It was a _contest_. Primarily, it was a NATIONAL
> CHAMPIONSHIP. Its *supposed* to be tough and challenging and require
> good judgement and tough decisions and calculated risks. It was not
> billed as a contest for beginners. It was not intended to be a place
> where people come to fly their first contest. Some people have
> complained about Logan in the context of getting "Joe Glider Pilot" to
> come fly contests... But "Joe" was not the target audience! If you
> want to get "Joe" out, do what we do in WA: Hold a mock-contest over a
> 3-day weekend, with mentors and seminars and short simple tasks in a
> place with strong lift and non-threatening terrain. Don't dumb-down
> National Championships or restrict which sites are considered for major
> events, based on the misguided assumption that somehow you'll increase
> participation by doing so.
>
> And to anyone who's actually read this Novella all the way through:
> Thanks! :-)
>
> --Noel

Noel has been using his personal blog space on the SSA web site to post
about his experiences and thoughts. I invite any SSA member to follow
suit. Others can follow member blogs using the RSS feeds. Read the
disclaimer.

Hopefully, bloggers will use this to describe their experiences, projects,
opinions, and ideas.

You can subscribe to various feeds; general news, particular committees,
and members.

See http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=9105607271&show=blog&id=11
for details.

Inspire me,

Frank Whiteley

Scott Alexander[_2_]

August 11th 11, 05:24 PM

On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> Pilots can and should be warned of local hazards, and they are already
> made of aware of places like dry lakes that are known quantities that
> won't change,

So why not make the known quantities (dry lake) a turnpoint, and
delete the turnpoints that are mountain peaks!!!! :-)

On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
> lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
> or even during the day.

If it's not a known quantity, then don't list it as a turnpoint!
Simple! Easy!

There is no debating that glide navigation into a known quantity is
better than having glide navigation into an unlandable point.

Eric Greenwell[_4_]

August 11th 11, 07:10 PM

On 8/11/2011 9:24 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
> On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric > wrote:

>
> On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric > wrote:
>> but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
>> lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
>> or even during the day.
>
> If it's not a known quantity, then don't list it as a turnpoint!
> Simple! Easy!

My point was fields are not "known quantities", so listing them as
"landable" is a bad idea.

> There is no debating that glide navigation into a known quantity is
> better than having glide navigation into an unlandable point.

Turnpoints haven't been "turnpoints" for years but are "turn areas", and
where the pilot turns can be 10 miles from the turnpoint. In the olden
days when we did actually turn at turnpoints, airports were often used
as turnpoints because they were easy to identify by the pilot and the
person reading the film, not because they were landable. Some airports
used as turnpoints were, in fact, not landable by large wingspan gliders
(and even some smaller ones).

Even in those days, many turnpoints were NOT landable, but were easily
identifiable road intersections, dams, towers, and other objects (yes,
even mountain peaks).

Remember, it's a "turnpoint" and the pilot is not required to land
there, so there is no need to use a landable area. There is nothing
inherent about a landable area that makes it any easier to reach. I'd
rather the turnpoint was in an area of good soaring that on a landable area.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

Darryl Ramm

August 11th 11, 07:43 PM

On 8/11/11 11:10 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
> On 8/11/2011 9:24 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
>> On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric > wrote:
>
>>
>> On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric > wrote:
>>> but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
>>> lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
>>> or even during the day.
>>
>> If it's not a known quantity, then don't list it as a turnpoint!
>> Simple! Easy!
>
> My point was fields are not "known quantities", so listing them as
> "landable" is a bad idea.
>
>> There is no debating that glide navigation into a known quantity is
>> better than having glide navigation into an unlandable point.
>
>
> Turnpoints haven't been "turnpoints" for years but are "turn areas", and
> where the pilot turns can be 10 miles from the turnpoint. In the olden
> days when we did actually turn at turnpoints, airports were often used
> as turnpoints because they were easy to identify by the pilot and the
> person reading the film, not because they were landable. Some airports
> used as turnpoints were, in fact, not landable by large wingspan gliders
> (and even some smaller ones).
>
> Even in those days, many turnpoints were NOT landable, but were easily
> identifiable road intersections, dams, towers, and other objects (yes,
> even mountain peaks).
>
> Remember, it's a "turnpoint" and the pilot is not required to land
> there, so there is no need to use a landable area. There is nothing
> inherent about a landable area that makes it any easier to reach. I'd
> rather the turnpoint was in an area of good soaring that on a landable
> area.
>

I'll add that in mountain areas where there is a lot of glider traffic
those unlandable mountain peaks (Yes I've seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-9RPJDoC5E :-))and similar waypoints are
very important for reporting positions on the radio. Think especially of
the white mountains. And sometimes the height of ridges and saddles are
important for glide computations, and marking known good "elevators" is
a great idea (really helps newer XC pilots). Out of my home base of
Williams, CA. There is classic convergence patterns along the Mendocino
ranges. A long chain of waypoints, none of them landable and everybody
reports their position along that loose chain. The landable waypoints
are all out in the valleys to either side, or if you screw up there are
often reasonable field choices. The same is typical of many other sites.

Hopefully pilots know how to drive their flight computer/PDA software to
do things like show landable waypoints with different symbols, show only
a list of landable waypoints, sort by distance to landable waypoints,
etc. and more importantly don't just take other people's word n any of
this. Study the waypoints in Google earth, by air-tour in a power plane,
and on foot inspections and make up their own minds. Locally we have
some pretty good discussions and even for one area host a small online
database of comments and pictures etc. people can post of waypoints and
landing sites.

Darryl