Turnpoint Database's Need Overhaul

[Scott Alexander[_2_]]

It's beginning to seem like common practice to have multiple accidents
at glider contests these days. I really hate to see accidents get
hushed up, nothing mentioned on the contest report, except for a
simple "W" and "F" next to the persons score. We can all learn from
these accidents, why hide them? Why not make changes to avoid these
from recurring. Anyone who flies contests knows they aren't immune
from accidents.

After reading the debate between 80 miles of unlandable terrain at
Logan, I looked over the turnpoint list on google earth. I noticed
there are large number of turnpoints that are Mountain Peaks. Years
ago when camera's were required to take a picture of an easily
identifiable turnpiont, a Mountain Peak might have been a good
turnpoint. But now in the age of GPS's, we don't so much need an
easily identifiable turnpoint. Especially when we are flying into a
big turn cylinder. And besides, nobody needs glide navigation
information into the top of a mountain.

A contest I flew in a few years ago, had a river as a turnpoint. A
local pilot showed me on google earth a perfect field two miles away
from the river. Why not have this perfect field as a turnpoint?
Wouldn't it be nicer to have distance, direction and glide navigation
information into this perfect field rather than the river?

Another task I flew had no turnpoints listed between the final turn
point and the finish cylinder which was 18 miles. There was no
obvious places to land, except for one hidden grass runway that was
kept mowed. I landedat this hidden grass runway in a Piper Cub a
couple days later. Why wasn't this listed into the turnpoint
database?

I know that the contest committee reads this and it would sure be
great if there could be a push for revamping the turnpoint database to
include excellent places to land and remove turnpoints that don't help
you when you get low.


I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more
accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. Why
don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety???

[Tom Serkowski]

On 8/6/11 11:23 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
> I noticed
> there are large number of turnpoints that are Mountain Peaks. Years
> ago when camera's were required to take a picture of an easily
> identifiable turnpiont, a Mountain Peak might have been a good
> turnpoint.

Actually, a mountain peak is *NOT* a good photo turn. It used to be
that we had to leave the good soaring on the mountains to go out into
the valley and take a photo of an airport. Then, since the lift in the
valley wasn't good, we would land at that airport... :-)

Most contests today do a lot of turn areas, so we have very large
circles around the turns, so perhaps using a landable place would be
good, except when flying an assigned task.

The real problem with identifying questionable landing spots in a
database is that pilots will follow the computer at max L/D could be in
for a rude surprise when on short final.

For the Tonopah contest, they did create a database of dry lakes and
dirt roads, which did make it a little more comfortable. Out there it
*really* is possible to have absolutely noting 'safe' to land on for
50km or more. With the possibility of gliding more than 100km before
needing to look for a place to land, it's nice to know that what looks
like a possible landing place from 100km out, it might actually be 'safe'.

-Tom

[Andy[_1_]]

On Aug 6, 11:23*am, Scott Alexander >
wrote:

> I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more
> accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. *Why
> don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety???

There is no requirement for a turnpoint to be landable. There is no
requirement for a turnpoint database to include any landable sites.
It would be nice, however, if contest organizers provided a separate
landables database, particularly when holding a contest at a site
where no one except locals knows where the landables are.

The problem with a "landables" database is that it needs to be
maintained. A strip that was landable 5 years ago may be full of
motor homes and off road vehicles on the day you need it.

Local knowledge is a huge advantage at any contest site and
particularly at a new site. Nothing is going to change that.

Andy

[Eric Greenwell[_4_]]

On 8/13/2011 5:59 PM, Andy wrote:
> On Aug 6, 11:23 am, Scott >
> wrote:
>
>> I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more
>> accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. Why
>> don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety???
>
> There is no requirement for a turnpoint to be landable. There is no
> requirement for a turnpoint database to include any landable sites.
> It would be nice, however, if contest organizers provided a separate
> landables database, particularly when holding a contest at a site
> where no one except locals knows where the landables are.

It seems likely to me that Scott meant "waypoints" when he said
"turnpoints", and was promoting landable waypoints be included in the
waypoint database, not that all turnpoints actually be landable.
"Waypoint" and "turnpoint" are often used interchangeably, but that's a
real mistake when talking about contests.

> The problem with a "landables" database is that it needs to be
> maintained. A strip that was landable 5 years ago may be full of
> motor homes and off road vehicles on the day you need it.
>
> Local knowledge is a huge advantage at any contest site and
> particularly at a new site.

I'll quibble with this: local knowledge is usually much less valuable at
flat land sites than in mountain sites or ridge sites.

> Nothing is going to change that.

In the past, something did change that in a remarkable way: GPS
receivers. They made navigating so easy, it was no longer a factor in
contest flying.

That kind of change is still possible. Google Earth lets you "fly" a
contest area; Michael Reid's use of Google maps to document landing
areas and lift sources could substantially reduce the effect of local
knowledge, but not many sites have been documented. Condor and other
simulators have the potential to train pilots to fly well at a new site,
and I think that will be SOP for contest pilots in less than 5 years.

Am I right, Frank?

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

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Aug 13, 4:51*pm, Tom Serkowski > wrote:
> On 8/6/11 11:23 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
>
> > I noticed
> > there are large number of turnpoints that are Mountain Peaks. *Years
> > ago when camera's were required to take a picture of an easily
> > identifiable turnpiont, a Mountain Peak might have been a good
> > turnpoint.
>
> Actually, a mountain peak is *NOT* a good photo turn. *It used to be
> that we had to leave the good soaring on the mountains to go out into
> the valley and take a photo of an airport. *Then, since the lift in the
> valley wasn't good, we would land at that airport... *:-)
>
> Most contests today do a lot of turn areas, so we have very large
> circles around the turns, so perhaps using a landable place would be
> good, except when flying an assigned task.
>
> The real problem with identifying questionable landing spots in a
> database is that pilots will follow the computer at max L/D could be in
> for a rude surprise when on short final.
>
> For the Tonopah contest, they did create a database of dry lakes and
> dirt roads, which did make it a little more comfortable. *Out there it
> *really* is possible to have absolutely noting 'safe' to land on for
> 50km or more. *With the possibility of gliding more than 100km before
> needing to look for a place to land, it's nice to know that what looks
> like a possible landing place from 100km out, it might actually be 'safe'..
>
> -Tom

Mountain peak waypoints at Logan were a great idea. They often marked
the ends of "ridges" which made task planning and navigation easy. And
if you are trying to transition to a ridge, where ridge lift may not
work much below the top, or if you're approaching from the "wrong"
side, how lovely that your glide computer automatically gives you a
glide solution to the crucial ridge top.

John Cochrane

[Frank Paynter[_2_]]

On Aug 13, 9:59*pm, Eric Greenwell > wrote:
> On 8/13/2011 5:59 PM, Andy wrote:
>
> > On Aug 6, 11:23 am, Scott >
> > wrote:
>
> >> I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more
> >> accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. *Why
> >> don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety???
>
> > There is no requirement for a turnpoint to be landable. *There is no
> > requirement for a turnpoint database to include any landable sites.
> > It would be nice, however, if contest organizers provided a separate
> > landables database, particularly when holding a contest at a site
> > where no one except locals knows where the landables are.
>
> It seems likely to me that Scott meant "waypoints" when he said
> "turnpoints", and was promoting landable waypoints be included in the
> waypoint database, not that all turnpoints actually be landable.
> "Waypoint" and "turnpoint" are often used interchangeably, but that's a
> real mistake when talking about contests.
>
> > The problem with a "landables" database is that it needs to be
> > maintained. *A strip that was landable 5 years ago may be full of
> > motor homes and off road vehicles on the day you need it.
>
> > Local knowledge is a huge advantage at any contest site and
> > particularly at a new site.
>
> I'll quibble with this: local knowledge is usually much less valuable at
> flat land sites than in mountain sites or ridge sites.
>
> > Nothing is going to change that.
>
> In the past, something did change that in a remarkable way: GPS
> receivers. They made navigating so easy, it was no longer a factor in
> contest flying.
>
> That kind of change is still possible. Google Earth lets you "fly" a
> contest area; Michael Reid's use of Google maps to document landing
> areas and lift sources could substantially reduce the effect of local
> knowledge, but not many sites have been documented. Condor and other
> simulators have the potential to train pilots to fly well at a new site,
> and I think that will be SOP for contest pilots in less than 5 years.
>
> Am I right, Frank?
>
> --
> Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
> email me)

Eric,

Yes, you are right. Condor's list of landscapes (aka Sceneries) is
growing every day, and now already covers Parowan, Logan, and Uvalde,
just to name a few. If I were a pilot planning to attend the 2012 WGC
at Uvalde, I'd be flying previous years' contest tasks in the Uvalde
task area over the winter. I flew about 20-30 hours in the Logan
terrain before going there, and it helped a LOT.

Regarding the use of landable fields/airports for contest databases,
we overhauled the CCSC database about 5 years ago to do just that,
However, as someone else pointed out, at least one of our landable
airports was abandoned a couple of years after the overhaul, and is no
longer landable.

TA