700 agl / 1 mile finish

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.

Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20.. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.

I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 9:04:27 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
>
>
> Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

The finish altitude is set by the CD to whatever he or she feels is appropriate for the airport, surrounding terrain, traffic issues, weather, etc. There is no rule regarding its value.

The guidance -- guidance, not rule -- to 700' AGL (Which means 500' AGL for speed points) has in mind thermal flight, reasonable surrounding terrain, and a normal airport. The point is to reduce the otherwise strong incentive to try marginal glides that either pop over the fence at the last moment, or result in a hasty off field landing 1 mile out and "planned" from about 100 feet AGL.

The guidance suggests even higher altitudes for rough surrounding terrain, airports with little room for multiple landings, or airports with power traffic.

The situation at Mifflin on a backside ridge day certainly seems plausibly appropriate for a lower altitude. There is no temptation to squeak low final glides -- you're all coming off the back of the ridge at the same point and altitude, and your only choice from then on is to push or float. 500' AGL has worked fine in the past in this situation.

But... I can naturally see a harried CD not thinking about this ahead of time. It's a subtle point. Did you or any of the pilots notice this might be a problem ahead of time and suggest a lower finish altitude to the CD for that day only? The rules give a lot of flexibility for a reason, but you can't expect rules to foresee every possibility, especially if wise CDs, task advisers, and pilots in place aren't seeing that possibility! Really, I don't think you get to complain unless pilots and task advisers saw the problem, explained this issue to the CD ahead of time, and the CD refused the request.

Otherwise, let's all file in the lesson learned category. 500' finish for backside ridge days. Check.

John Cochrane

[John Carlyle]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
> Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
> I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I absolutely agree. I was one of the two penalized pilots, so my comments could be taken as sour grapes.

When you consider, however, that there was no shortening of the downwind, base or final legs, that I was using spoilers during all legs to lose altitude, and my speed was never below 55 kts until the flare, I think you'll agree that this new rule is too severe.

If this comes up for a vote this year, I will be supporting a minimum 500 foot arrival at 1 mile, with graduated penalties down to the surface.

-John, Q3

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:21:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 9:04:27 AM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
> The finish altitude is set by the CD to whatever he or she feels is appropriate for the airport, surrounding terrain, traffic issues, weather, etc. There is no rule regarding its value.
>
>
>
> The guidance -- guidance, not rule -- to 700' AGL (Which means 500' AGL for speed points) has in mind thermal flight, reasonable surrounding terrain, and a normal airport. The point is to reduce the otherwise strong incentive to try marginal glides that either pop over the fence at the last moment, or result in a hasty off field landing 1 mile out and "planned" from about 100 feet AGL.
>
>
>
> The guidance suggests even higher altitudes for rough surrounding terrain, airports with little room for multiple landings, or airports with power traffic.
>
>
>
> The situation at Mifflin on a backside ridge day certainly seems plausibly appropriate for a lower altitude. There is no temptation to squeak low final glides -- you're all coming off the back of the ridge at the same point and altitude, and your only choice from then on is to push or float. 500' AGL has worked fine in the past in this situation.
>
>
>
> But... I can naturally see a harried CD not thinking about this ahead of time. It's a subtle point. Did you or any of the pilots notice this might be a problem ahead of time and suggest a lower finish altitude to the CD for that day only? The rules give a lot of flexibility for a reason, but you can't expect rules to foresee every possibility, especially if wise CDs, task advisers, and pilots in place aren't seeing that possibility! Really, I don't think you get to complain unless pilots and task advisers saw the problem, explained this issue to the CD ahead of time, and the CD refused the request.
>
>
>
> Otherwise, let's all file in the lesson learned category. 500' finish for backside ridge days. Check.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

We understand all those points. The thing is, people will tend to go with guidance by default.

It isn't just the "classic" back side sailplane time trial days at Mifflin, either. The back side ridge came into play one other day when no one would have forecast such a thing. It was weak, the angle stunk, the thermals were gone. Given the terrain around Mifflin, there really isn't any good reason to set the finish height above 1320 at any time.

As far as tasking goes... talk about harried! Nothing like getting the Mifflin special "no repeat MAT" for 4 hours, about 20 minutes before launch! If anyone was thinking ahead to the finish gate height, it certainly wasn't me. I didn't even realize we were using 700 agl (we'd discussed on practice day and what I'd heard was that we'd use 500 / 1 mile cylinder or a 50' gate if tasking allowed) until I approached the first finish and wondered why 600 over the airport on my 303 display was showing 100 low on ClearNav.

T8

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:32:01 AM UTC-4, John Carlyle wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
> >
>
> > Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
> >
>
> > I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
> >
>
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
> I absolutely agree. I was one of the two penalized pilots, so my comments could be taken as sour grapes.
>
>
>
> When you consider, however, that there was no shortening of the downwind, base or final legs, that I was using spoilers during all legs to lose altitude, and my speed was never below 55 kts until the flare, I think you'll agree that this new rule is too severe.
>
>
>
> If this comes up for a vote this year, I will be supporting a minimum 500 foot arrival at 1 mile, with graduated penalties down to the surface.
>
>
>
> -John, Q3

That makes three.

T8

[John Carlyle]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:21:58 AM UTC-4, wrote:
>
> ...[Big clip...]
>
> But... I can naturally see a harried CD not thinking about this ahead of time. It's a subtle point. Did you or any of the pilots notice this might be a problem ahead of time and suggest a lower finish altitude to the CD for that day only? The rules give a lot of flexibility for a reason, but you can't expect rules to foresee every possibility, especially if wise CDs, task advisers, and pilots in place aren't seeing that possibility! Really, I don't think you get to complain unless pilots and task advisers saw the problem, explained this issue to the CD ahead of time, and the CD refused the request.
>
> Otherwise, let's all file in the lesson learned category. 500' finish for backside ridge days. Check.
>
> John Cochrane

With all due respect, putting this on the pilots is crap. We'd flown 5 hard, long days at this point, were all tired, and had no idea of what kind of lift we'd get from the back of Jack's. Further, some of us are relatively new to the contest scene and aren't "rule wonks", while all of us were new to the "guidance" being discussed. The "guidance" is too conservative and needs to be changed, period.

-John, Q3

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.


Argh. That's a typo. MiffCo airport is 819 MSL, finish was 1520 MSL, no speed points at 1320 MSL.

T8

[[email protected]]

>
> That makes three.
>
> T8

While I appreciate the feedback, I would hope you'd consider how the rule works at a variety of contests and weather conditions, rather than have us design and modify a rule according to how it worked on one day at Mifflin, in rather special weather and rather special orientation of airport and ridge.

The rule is designed for thermal tasks at 99% of airports. It is written flexibly enough so that it can be adapted to the special circumstances of Mifflin on a backside ridge day. Does it really make sense to write the rule for all the 99% of circumstances thinking only about how it worked on a backside ridge day?

Last, when thinking about a rule like this one, adding up the number of times a pilot got a penalty, but feels he or she had adequate energy misses the whole point. We need to also add up the number of times pilots don't have adequate energy. 5 clicks in a row does not make Russian Roulette safer.

So, I would encourage you all to take a deep breath, and evaluate how finishes are working out in all of your contests this season, especially when you face a tough final glide over rough terrain.

And, next time there is a backside ridge day at Mifflin, encourage the CD to lower the finish altitude.

John Cochrane

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:04:27 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
>
>
> Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

10.9.2.2.1 ‡ Each task shall include a Minimum Finish Height (MFH), set by the CD at least high enough that pilots who obtain
a valid finish can return to the home airfield for a normal pattern and landing.

Here's the rule Evan. The CD has no become responsible to make sure you have enough altitude so you, Evan, can fly a "normal pattern".

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
>
>
> Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8


Help. I need a realistic solution for the times and places where for some good reason the race must end somewhere other than the airport. This situation really does arise.

It seems to me that a graduated penalty all the way to the ground is just another way of saying "the race always ends at the airport."

For example, at Minden you must not have gliders arriving at the airport below pattern altitude as part of a normal task completion.

So ideas please.

John Godfrey (QT)
RC Chair

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 8:04:27 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
>
>
> Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

QT, John, the race should end when the pilot finishes. What the PIC does after that is he's responsibility. No CD should be ever be responsible for what any PIC does aboard his aircraft or to ensure that PIC has enough altitude to fly a "normal pattern".

Write rules to race by. Safety is everyone's wants and goal, BUT the PIC is the final authority as to the operation of his aircraft and the FAR's support that.

Keep it simply, finish altitude is determined by the CD. What the PIC does before or after he finishes is his responsibility to ensure he operates his aircraft according to the FAR's.

Any finish below the finish altitude receives distance only, no speed points. Stop this, well, we want to be good guy, and if you almost make it, will give you some speed points. Make it a "hard deck" rule. Remove the "hope I get a bump up" which can result in an unplanned or unwanted happening and require a "good judgement" approach to the finish.

Tom Kelley, #711.

[soartech[_2_]]

>The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. *You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. *Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). *Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). *This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? *I don't think so. *I fly a '20. *What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? *We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.

What a bunch of puzzling, unsafe crap. No wonder most pilots have zero
interest in contest flying, me included.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11:03 PM UTC-4, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>
>
>
> Help. I need a realistic solution for the times and places where for some good reason the race must end somewhere other than the airport. This situation really does arise.
>
>
>
> It seems to me that a graduated penalty all the way to the ground is just another way of saying "the race always ends at the airport."
>
>
>
> For example, at Minden you must not have gliders arriving at the airport below pattern altitude as part of a normal task completion.
>
>
>
> So ideas please.
>
>
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
>
> RC Chair

Make Minden (and similar) the exception. If it takes 1000 agl and 2 miles to be safe and accommodating at Minden, do it. I believe that's been possible under existing rules for several years. It's the new 700 agl guidance applied to benign venues that's coughing up hairballs in combination with the -200' "death penalty" (not my name, but that's what guys are calling it)..

Personally I advocate: 500 / 1 mile guidance (with provision for changes to suit special cases like Minden) and a *modest* penalty for being low, say 10 pts per 100'. This makes it absolutely advantageous to follow the rules, doesn't turf a pilot out of the running for a distance miscalculation as happened last week (going for the show finish a little early, > 200 low, but fast). If an absolute floor is required at a place like Minden, so be it..

Yes, I know you can hit 500 / 1 mile at 60 kts in an 18m ship and not make the airport at ______ and I'm sorry someone decided to try that. That's why I aim for 100' high, level and fast a half mile out. No penalties, no fuss, eyes out and alert, two or three split second checks to make certain I'm not inadvertently descending (and I'd really rather not be bothered with that, to tell the truth).

Sometimes I think we should make the finish gate bottom 500 feet /under/ ground. Airmanship, guys. Airmanship.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean Franke]

I was the second guy to get no speed points for an otherwise good finish and great flight. After misunderstanding the distance on my PDA, I pushed the stick forward thinking I had a good finish. It turns out when I crossed the real finish point I was 250 feet too low at 120 knots. The "landout" penalty amounted to 250+ points, expensive blunder. The current rule doesn't consider total energy.

A respected pilot at the contest explained he watches his PDA to see the finish arc is crossed. Seems another unintended consequence of this rule is a high demand of "head in the cockpit" at a critical point in the flight? That's my takeaway from this blunder.

Sean Franke
Flying LS3a HF

[[email protected]]

> Personally I advocate: 500 / 1 mile guidance (with provision for changes to suit special cases like Minden) and a *modest* penalty for being low, say 10 pts per 100'....
>
> Yes, I know you can hit 500 / 1 mile at 60 kts in an 18m ship and not make the airport at ______ and I'm sorry someone decided to try that.

> Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, and everyone else. This rule is not about the finish. Wrap your head around that slowly. This rule has nothing to do with making sure you can make it to the airport after crossing the finish cylinder.

The rule is aimed at the guy 10 miles out on MacCready 0 glide plus 50 feet.. With your proposal -- 500', 10 points per 100' low -- that pilot looks at his options: pop over the fence, 50 point penalty. Land out here: lose 400 points. The rules are giving the pilot a very strong incentive to try it. Low final glides, and heroic pop over the fence stories were once part of gliding lore. As was picking up pieces from the fence and the last few fields.

Once again, "guidance" is not "rule." You cannot expect the RC sitting in its glorious splendor to decide the right finish altitude for every contest, every airport, and every weather condition, because the CD and pilots who are there won't be able to think of it! That's what we have CDs and advisers for.

The rule sets forth a structure. Pilots, CDs, and advisers can make the finish high or low as needed.

A better idea for Mifflin (and Truckee) might be a remote finish on the ridge top.

John Cochrane

[Sean F (F2)]

The finish altitude was 500 agl at the recently completed 18 meter nationals in Bermuda High until someone asked (safety box) for 700 agl and a 200 ft wider safety margin. There was some friendly debate at the pilots meeting ;-). I supported the change to 700 as well as 5-7 other pilots. 2-3 were against it, firmly. The CD decided to go with the 700 ft agl suggestion and it was raised from that point forward in the contest. The problem that led to this debate was that certain approaches to Bermuda High had few landing options (mainly forest with small obstacle filled options) for the last 5-10 miles. We also experienced regular amd significant sink at lower altitudes approaching the airport on certain days. One pilot went from 300 above MC 3.0 at 10 miles and was sunk to 180 below 1-2 miles out. He barely made the airport as it was his best option. Several competitors had landed within a few miles of the airport on other days in the same situation. I was often just making at 500 agl and 1 mile from 15-20 miles out and MC 3.5 with a 500-700 ft safety margin. Yes, my polar is accurate.

When the floor was raised to 700 there seemed to be much less issues in general and I felt safer in this particular location.

The issues in Mifflin appear to me to be more a problem with a contest flying area that has much more complication and risks. I don't really like contest at these types of locations. I prefer thermal contests in flat terrain and ample farmland. I like flying in the complex areas, but not racing (or AATing, :-))

I have no solution to the concerns other than site selection. I think Mifflin in marginal weather is marginal.

In the end I agree with Tom, it's PIC responsibility. We can only set a safety margin and hope its enough to keep pilots who push it (or have no other choice like Evan did) to stay safe.

For the Mifflin situation, there is no safe answer. It's a rodeo and the bull has sharp horns when condition are as described.

Best,

Sean
F2

[Sean Franke]

John, a remote finish at high altitude as suggested might be the best option for all US finishes.

The current rule / guidance allows for a potentially unsafe situation. In Mifflin at one mile out (turns out to be the airport edge)at 650 feet you can make a safe approach and landing. You then get a significant penalty. Making a few turns at 650 feet, 1.5 miles out to gain 100 feet has a small time penalty. In the mean time guys a moderate speed are coming through at 750 feet agl to finish. WOW, the safe move of coming in to land has a higher penalty than low thermalling just outside the finish with other gliders trying to get through.

Sean Franke

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:

> For the Mifflin situation, there is no safe answer. It's a rodeo and the bull has sharp horns when condition are as described.

Good gracious no! There must be 300 acres of landable terrain within a mile of the MiffCo airport (i.e. most of it) and several thousand within 5. A busted glide here results in a safe landout unless someone gets very thick headed and puts the decision off to 200 agl or some such.

The 500' / 1 mile finish at MiffCo is about as completely benign as it is possible to achieve. 700 is complete overkill and has awkward complications as previously noted.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean F (F2)]

Ok. I stand corrected. Never flown there, but stayed there one night in a motorhome. Beautiful place.

[[email protected]]

>
> Good gracious no! There must be 300 acres of landable terrain within a mile of the MiffCo airport (i.e. most of it) and several thousand within 5.
>
>
> The 500' / 1 mile finish at MiffCo is about as completely benign as it is possible to achieve. 700 is complete overkill and has awkward complications as previously noted.
>
>

By and large, yes. But not always. Download Mifflin traces and watch fun glides through the gap. Mc 0 + 50' through the gap is not for the faint of heart.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:07:53 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > Personally I advocate: 500 / 1 mile guidance (with provision for changes to suit special cases like Minden) and a *modest* penalty for being low, say 10 pts per 100'.... > > Yes, I know you can hit 500 / 1 mile at 60 kts in an 18m ship and not make the airport at ______ and I'm sorry someone decided to try that. > Evan Ludeman / T8 Evan, and everyone else. This rule is not about the finish. Wrap your head around that slowly. This rule has nothing to do with making sure you can make it to the airport after crossing the finish cylinder. The rule is aimed at the guy 10 miles out on MacCready 0 glide plus 50 feet. With your proposal -- 500', 10 points per 100' low -- that pilot looks at his options: pop over the fence, 50 point penalty. Land out here: lose 400 points. The rules are giving the pilot a very strong incentive to try it. Low final glides, and heroic pop over the fence stories were once part of gliding lore. As was picking up pieces from the fence and the last few fields. Once again, "guidance" is not "rule." You cannot expect the RC sitting in its glorious splendor to decide the right finish altitude for every contest, every airport, and every weather condition, because the CD and pilots who are there won't be able to think of it! That's what we have CDs and advisers for. The rule sets forth a structure. Pilots, CDs, and advisers can make the finish high or low as needed. A better idea for Mifflin (and Truckee) might be a remote finish on the ridge top. John Cochrane

as long as the remote finish point is within 2 miles of the airport, right? Or is there somewhere else in the rules that I'm not seeing that allows the CD to set a remote finish anywhere they choose?

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:39:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:

>
> By and large, yes. But not always. Download Mifflin traces and watch fun glides through the gap. Mc 0 + 50' through the gap is not for the faint of heart.

You say that as though it was commonplace. It wasn't.

T8

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:07:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:

> The rule is aimed at the guy 10 miles out on MacCready 0 glide plus 50 feet. With your proposal -- 500', 10 points per 100' low -- that pilot looks at his options: pop over the fence, 50 point penalty. Land out here: lose 400 points. The rules are giving the pilot a very strong incentive to try it.. Low final glides, and heroic pop over the fence stories were once part of gliding lore. As was picking up pieces from the fence and the last few fields.

Believe it or not, I get the motivation. My point is that you've created a rather blunt instrument to deal with it and the unintended consequences are not completely trivial.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Sean F (F2)]

Evan,

Are you thinking perhaps a proportional penalty (say 1 pt per foot) but no loss if speed points would be better? I could support that. Or are you saying Mifflin should have had no minimum height this day? 300 ft? 100? 50? Avoid the cars and squirrels? :-), just kidding. Seriously what would have been the right number or procedure for that day at Mifflin?

The US finish rule, if its going to be effective, needs to have at least a few sharp teeth, but perhaps a simple linear penalty without losing speed points would be less harsh for pilots who are unable to meet their finish height for "innocent" reasons. I think this is what you are saying.

Again, I can agree that the current penalty being very significant. But if we have this rule and pilots are finishing at minimum energy to avoid the penalty (happens all the time), it probably should be even higher and not lower. As you mentioned, you were min energy and 500 ft. Thats no fun and risky for sure. In that case, that low, it is probably safer to have no finish penalty and simply allow finishing pilots to plan a pattern with energy as part of the finish final glide. No worry about min energy to a finish height and then decide what to do based on who is around you at that moment. Also that pilot (finishing at 502 and 50 knots) is laser focused on his/her altimeter at the absolute worst possible moment while near stall (other than starting of course in a big high energy gaggle). They have also probably been spending alot of time heads down in the cockpit in the tense minutes leading up to the finish!

How many pilots did not receive a finish penalty on this day? HF doesn't count as he made a computer boo boo. Did most pilots make it?

I guess my concern is that all pilots have the same rule to manage no matter what it is. The rule simply builds in a safety buffer on a worst case scenario. The question is this: is that safety buffer high enough in the event of this low energy situation to be safer? Nothing in the US rule rewards a pilot for making the safe decision and maintaining their precious energy close to the ground, at say 300 ft, trying to avoid the landout limit in a 500 agl finish minimum task. Only the hammer is applied. The result will be pilots doing what you did.

Also, I'm not sure bad luck is to blame if most pilots met the minimum. If some or most met the finish height, then it was a finish strategy problem perhaps for those who missed. But if everyone made it in at 50 knots and 502 feet it was actually far more dangerous for the contest. That is an excellent point if its what your saying. Ill look at the files I guess.

I would say a higher minimum which factors in a stall/spin at finish or no penalty at all and simply fall back on the FAR s, and basic rules of aviation safety which are clearly and firmly in place for all if us and supersede US or FAI rules.

I don't think there is a right answer. I personally think we need a bigger buffer (1000') or no finish height per FAI.

Sean

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.
>
>
>
> Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
>
>
> I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.
>
>
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Can’t we allll, just have a line?

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 4:15:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote: > Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin. > > > > Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles.. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work. > > > > I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe. > > > > Evan Ludeman / T8 Can’t we allll, just have a line?

Yes you can in nationals and regionals that do not have a Sports class.
More fun, no finish height penalties, incrementally less safe.
UH

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 3:33:39 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Evan,
>
>
>
> Are you thinking perhaps a proportional penalty (say 1 pt per foot) but no loss if speed points would be better? I could support that. Or are you saying Mifflin should have had no minimum height this day? 300 ft? 100? 50? Avoid the cars and squirrels? :-), just kidding. Seriously what would have been the right number or procedure for that day at Mifflin?
>
>
>
> The US finish rule, if its going to be effective, needs to have at least a few sharp teeth, but perhaps a simple linear penalty without losing speed points would be less harsh for pilots who are unable to meet their finish height for "innocent" reasons. I think this is what you are saying.
>
>
>
> Again, I can agree that the current penalty being very significant. But if we have this rule and pilots are finishing at minimum energy to avoid the penalty (happens all the time), it probably should be even higher and not lower. As you mentioned, you were min energy and 500 ft. Thats no fun and risky for sure. In that case, that low, it is probably safer to have no finish penalty and simply allow finishing pilots to plan a pattern with energy as part of the finish final glide. No worry about min energy to a finish height and then decide what to do based on who is around you at that moment. Also that pilot (finishing at 502 and 50 knots) is laser focused on his/her altimeter at the absolute worst possible moment while near stall (other than starting of course in a big high energy gaggle). They have also probably been spending alot of time heads down in the cockpit in the tense minutes leading up to the finish!
>
>
>
> How many pilots did not receive a finish penalty on this day? HF doesn't count as he made a computer boo boo. Did most pilots make it?
>
>
>
> I guess my concern is that all pilots have the same rule to manage no matter what it is. The rule simply builds in a safety buffer on a worst case scenario. The question is this: is that safety buffer high enough in the event of this low energy situation to be safer? Nothing in the US rule rewards a pilot for making the safe decision and maintaining their precious energy close to the ground, at say 300 ft, trying to avoid the landout limit in a 500 agl finish minimum task. Only the hammer is applied. The result will be pilots doing what you did.
>
>
>
> Also, I'm not sure bad luck is to blame if most pilots met the minimum. If some or most met the finish height, then it was a finish strategy problem perhaps for those who missed. But if everyone made it in at 50 knots and 502 feet it was actually far more dangerous for the contest. That is an excellent point if its what your saying. Ill look at the files I guess.
>
>
>
> I would say a higher minimum which factors in a stall/spin at finish or no penalty at all and simply fall back on the FAR s, and basic rules of aviation safety which are clearly and firmly in place for all if us and supersede US or FAI rules.
>
>
>
> I don't think there is a right answer. I personally think we need a bigger buffer (1000') or no finish height per FAI.
>
>
>
> Sean

This is a bit verbose, but please bear with (less interested, please skip).

There is no "one size fits all". Now, with that out of the way, at MiffCo, we "own" the airport, it's Notam closed, the immediate surrounding terrain is unusually landable, there's this big ole ridge top 1000 above the airport 2.6 miles away with an unlandable gap that goes roughly from 3.3 out to 2.3 out.

The finish procedure in place this year was 700 agl / 1 mile. Airport is 820, so finish was 1520. Formerly (through last year) it was 500 agl / 1 mile. Some time in the past it was a 50 foot line finish at Nats.

When I started racing (1991) *all* we had was the "50" foot line finish. Sometimes those "feet" were pretty short :-).

On the back ridge days I mentioned, it was significantly difficult to hit 1520 one mile out. Flying slow, straight and level at 700 agl doesn't concern me. Clock watching to hit the magic 1520 at the magic 1 mile out in air that was nominally sinking a few hundred feet/minute concerned me. It seems a very strange and undesirable thing to encourage. I had the pattern to myself. With simultaneous finishers I'd have been at least 50' lower, eyes out and sore about the ensuing penalty. Obviously, I think this is unnecessary, hence the discussion.

An alternate finish on the ridge top with a min height /below/ the top of the ridge is one possible solution. It suffers from complexity (it would be unreasonable in many cases to use a ridge top finish /alone/). If we were to use this, I would pretty much insist that we make it so pilots can fly it strictly by visual reference (i.e. "if I am at ridge top it's well above minimum finish height").

In practice, the recent 500 / 1 mile cylinder worked fine. Yes, you can invent "edge cases" wherein you can hit 500 / 1 at 50 kts and get into trouble. I can invent as many that involve being 200 low at 130 kts and no problem.

BB's point about discouraging the Mc 0 + 50' glide to the runway /is/ a valid one... but I have personally never seen someone who needed discouraging.

I've seen four final glide wrecks up close (one of these second hand in a very familiar venue, relayed through pictures, flight log and discussion with guys I know who watched, the others I was an on the scene observer). All at some point involved some bit of appallingly bad decision making, and all, curiously involved pilots that I would describe as "recreational" contest fliers (happily all still living, breathing friends of mine too). Points and penalties were absolutely not on their minds. Getting to the airport and even to a specific /runway/ were the goals they could not let go. Two crashed on the airport trying to fly a full pattern from ~200 agl having overflown a perfectly usable alternate runway that they absolutely had made. The others rejected landable fields 8 miles out (one pilot had been in that field the previous day) in favor of an impossible Mc 0 + 300 sort of final glide over unlandable terrain /in the rain/). These are anecdotes, not statistics, but sure as shootin' they've been used in the "we've got to do something" numbers.

Personally, I could happily go back to a zero height finish line. Because I know I'll do it safely. I'm cerebral enough to understand things like "broke is last" and that ultimately we do this contest gig for giggles and peer respect. I'll bring home the extra energy to fly the pattern safely with no complaints. It isn't worth the potential glider rash, conflicts and bad feelings (see "peer respect") for an extra potential four or five points a day. If the day has truly died and I'm on some impossible final glide.... yes I will land five out in a good field rather than press towards a runway that I can't see at 40:1. I've done it in recreational flying, I'd do it in a contest too.

I do worry that the rules as currently in practice create a clock watching mentality. As airmen, we absolutely need to be focused on our airport arrival, pattern and landing in addition to finishing. For me, this was all viscerally obvious in the days of the finish line. I fly the current cylinder pretty much the same way: I bring home the energy I think I need to fly the remainder of the flight safely, but I have to do this weird inverse limbo dance thing at one mile. Not really objectionable at 500 / 1 mi because that's close to where I'd be anyway but annoying 200 higher where it starts to seem excessive w.r.t. what I consider reasonable and safe.

Do my fellow airmen now fly to their cylinder finish at xxx / 1 mile and *then* begin to think about arrival, pattern and landing? Some of what I read and hear suggests this may be so. Please don't do this. Bring home the energy you need, consider that the floor of the cylinder, like the bottom of the gate is only a minimum.

KS is famously quoted as saying "I should be able to call 1000K every day, and have no accidents". I think the same goes for a 50' gate.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

Food for thought: What about an "energy surplus at finish" bonus?

The current rules system provides an incentive to spend the last Joule of energy arriving at the bottom of the finish zone. Debate about where that zone should be located/shaped don't change the core incentive system. The concepts of "safer" and "higher scoring" have negative correlation.

But flight logs already have the information needed to know height and velocity, so with mass the total energy ((0.5 * mass * velocity * velocity) + (mass * height * g)) would be trivial to calculate. Subtract out the total energy implied by a finish at "minium height and minimum speed" and now you know how much extra energy a pilot had at the finish. Turn that in to a bonus, and the correlation between "safer" and "higher scoring" is increased..

Cheers,
-Mark Rebuck

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 6:24:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
> Food for thought: What about an "energy surplus at finish" bonus? The current rules system provides an incentive to spend the last Joule of energy arriving at the bottom of the finish zone. Debate about where that zone should be located/shaped don't change the core incentive system. The concepts of "safer" and "higher scoring" have negative correlation. But flight logs already have the information needed to know height and velocity, so with mass the total energy ((0.5 * mass * velocity * velocity) + (mass * height * g)) would be trivial to calculate. Subtract out the total energy implied by a finish at "minium height and minimum speed" and now you know how much extra energy a pilot had at the finish. Turn that in to a bonus, and the correlation between "safer" and "higher scoring" is increased. Cheers, -Mark Rebuck

This has been considered and really accomplishes no improvement while adding another complexity to rules and scoring program that people already think are too complicated.
There is no benefit in carrying extra energy into the cylinder and additionally it can cause a mix of gliders entering normally and pilots pulling up which can add significant risk.
In any case the correct speed to cross the edge of the cylinder is the avearage speed for the task.
UH

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 7:52:43 PM UTC-5, wrote:
In any case the correct speed to cross the edge of the cylinder is the avearage speed for the task. UH

Really, Hank? Cross into the cylinder at 35 MPH on a 35 MPH day? They do happen, you know. How about not significantly less than MC speed for the last climb.

ZS

[howdy]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:33:34 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
>
>
> > For the Mifflin situation, there is no safe answer. It's a rodeo and the bull has sharp horns when condition are as described.
>
>
>
> Good gracious no! There must be 300 acres of landable terrain within a mile of the MiffCo airport (i.e. most of it) and several thousand within 5. A busted glide here results in a safe landout unless someone gets very thick headed and puts the decision off to 200 agl or some such.
>
>
>
> The 500' / 1 mile finish at MiffCo is about as completely benign as it is possible to achieve. 700 is complete overkill and has awkward complications as previously noted.
>
>
>
> -Evan Ludeman / T8

I agree about the landout fields! Flown there many times. So maybe we really don't need this cylinder anyway. Especially considering the statement before about the temptation to thermal low, just outside the cylinder, in the way of other finishers, instead of getting a good finish by just landing at the airport.

And I strongly agree about the responsibility of the PIC.

Mark

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:36:42 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> ...How about not significantly less than MC speed for the last climb.

That's what I was thinking. And by giving back some points if the pilot comes home with surplus energy, the point cost of flying with a nice safety MC would be reduced.

I think of it as CDs spending contest points to buy safety MCs on final glides.

Say two pilots leave the same thermal at the same time, both with MC3 finals. One bombs home at MC4 and pulls up hard to just barely get back up to the cylinder. Another flies MC2 then finishes with plenty of energy. The current point system pays the MC4 pilot for his strategy. Perhaps paying the MC2 pilot a few points would increase safety without changing the race outcome.

I didn't realize the idea has been discussed and rejected before... Can anyone point me to the previous discussions? I searched but came up empty :).

Cheers,
-Mark Rebuck

[howdy]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:10:41 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:39:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>
>
>
> >
>
> > By and large, yes. But not always. Download Mifflin traces and watch fun glides through the gap. Mc 0 + 50' through the gap is not for the faint of heart.
>
>
>
> You say that as though it was commonplace. It wasn't.
>
>
>
> T8

And never has been. Surely if there were that many, someone would have crashed on final glide by now. There should be about 23 years of contests to look for one. Let us be the PIC and make our own choices, please.

Mark

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 6:38:56 PM UTC+2, soartech wrote:
> >The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. *You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. *Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). *Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). *This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? *I don't think so. *I fly a '20. *What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? *We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.
>
>
>
> What a bunch of puzzling, unsafe crap. No wonder most pilots have zero
>
> interest in contest flying, me included.

Do you like to play baseball or football? Race sailboats? You can say the same thing about just about any organized sport or competition.

I find the rules make the flying more challenging and a lot more interesting, compared to just boring holes in the sky over the same terrain, day after day.

Then again, I find watching other people do fun things really boring...

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:36:42 PM UTC-4, Steve Leonard wrote:
> On Friday, May 24, 2013 7:52:43 PM UTC-5, wrote: In any case the correct speed to cross the edge of the cylinder is the avearage speed for the task. UH Really, Hank? Cross into the cylinder at 35 MPH on a 35 MPH day? They do happen, you know. How about not significantly less than MC speed for the last climb. ZS

Should have clarified that extra energy should have been used to add speed before going into the finish cylinder as the extra energy carried across the line adds nothing to the score. Carrying 120 knots across the line on a 60 mph day is inefficient.
True, on very slow days your comment makes the most sense for this case.
UH

[[email protected]]

Let us be the PIC and make our own choices, please.
>
> Mark

This is pure BS, which we have been over time and time again, and by now should have sunk in.

You are always the PIC. No rule ever forces you to do anything. Get that in your head now.

Rule 9.3: "Judgments affecting flight safety are the sole responsibility of the pilot in command. This includes (though is not limited to) any decision to fly into weather, over rough terrain or hazardous areas, and the evaluation of the safety of any potential landing site" Got that?

The finish merely moves up what was always there. It used to be 1 inch over the fence = speed points, 1 inch under the fence = distance points. We simply moved that up 500 feet and it's the same for everybody. This should not be that hard to understand.

The finish rule REMOVES a previously strong incentive. Previously, the rules said, "C'mon, try it. 45:1 and pull back to make it over the fence. You get 400 points if you can make it work." Now the rules say, "You're the PIC. Do what's safe and sensible. If you can sneak back to the airport and that's the safe thing to do, do it. If landing here is the safe thing to do, do that. If thermaling a bit in this last crappy thermal is the right thing to do, do that too. We're not giving you points one way or the other. You're the PIC."

The rules never ever told anyone what to do. The old rules said you were PIC and trusted you to make the good PIC decision even with 400 points dangling in your face. The new rules trust you to make the good PIC decision, and remove the 400 points dangling in your face. The temptations to squeak in to the airport and not deal with a landout will still be there, and you'd better be ready to make hard decisions fast.

To reiterate points made thousands of times, but apparently not sinking in, we remove big temptations like that all over the rules. Why do we weigh? To remove the temptation to fly above max gross. Of course, no good PIC would do that right? Why do we ban second chances after landouts? To remove the temptation for 100 mph retrieves, slapdash assemblies. Of course, no good PIC would fall to that temptation, right? Why do we have harsh penalties for flying in illegal airspace? No good PIC would do that, right?

In none of these rules is the pilot EVER told what he must do. You ALWAYS are making your own choices. In these rules, an unintended strong temptation to do something stupid has been removed, in a way that is fair because it is absolutely the same for everybody.

John Cochrane

[Sean Franke]

Is this the primary purpose of the finish rule?

"The finish rule REMOVES a previously strong incentive. Previously, the rules said, "C'mon, try it. 45:1 and pull back to make it over the fence."

I think we can all agree this is UNSAFE flying. We already have a rule to address unsafe flying.

10.9.1.4 Pilots must pay particular attention to safety during the process of finishing, landing, and rolling to a stop. A pilot whose
finish, pattern, landing, or rollout is deemed unsafe by the CD is subject to a penalty for unsafe operation.

The maximum penalty is disqualification.

Was the cylinder with raised finish created because our unsafe flying rule wasn't being enforced?

Seems to me possible disqualification REMOVES a strong point incentive of just squeaking it over the fence.

Do we really need to make more rules because others are unenforced?

Sean Franke

[John Seaborn[_2_]]

The finish ring is a fine. The relatively recent addition of the distance points only clause if 1 foot below some imagined point in space is the problem. It violates the policy of a graduated penalty as applied by most rules in soaring.

Is the pilot who is 1 foot under the finish rings imagined point in space really several hundred points more dangerous? The problem is not typically related to gaming the energy but on those days with long, slow and perfectly safe arrivals with a few feet less altitude than needed to finish for speed points. Currently the penalty applied indicates the pilot who finishes at 499 feet rather than 500 has done some egregiously unsafe flying which he clearly has not.

The strategy being encouraged is to stop and climb at some point even it is directly on the final glide path very close to the airport at a tenuously safe altitude rather than take a several hundred point penalty for being 1 foot lower than some imaged point in space. A graduated penalty similar to turnpoints is a much less punitive approach to this problem.

My hats off to the Rules Committee members as they work hard on these issues and take a good deal of grief on occasion. As for contest flying generally the old saw about learning more about cross country soaring in an early regionals than a year of flying on your own still rings true, plus contests are a lot of fun.

John Seaborn

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, John Seaborn wrote:
> The finish ring is a fine. The relatively recent addition of the distance points only clause if 1 foot below some imagined point in space is the problem. It violates the policy of a graduated penalty as applied by most rules in soaring.
>
>
>
> Is the pilot who is 1 foot under the finish rings imagined point in space really several hundred points more dangerous? The problem is not typically related to gaming the energy but on those days with long, slow and perfectly safe arrivals with a few feet less altitude than needed to finish for speed points. Currently the penalty applied indicates the pilot who finishes at 499 feet rather than 500 has done some egregiously unsafe flying which he clearly has not.
>
>
>
> The strategy being encouraged is to stop and climb at some point even it is directly on the final glide path very close to the airport at a tenuously safe altitude rather than take a several hundred point penalty for being 1 foot lower than some imaged point in space. A graduated penalty similar to turnpoints is a much less punitive approach to this problem.
>
>
>
> My hats off to the Rules Committee members as they work hard on these issues and take a good deal of grief on occasion. As for contest flying generally the old saw about learning more about cross country soaring in an early regionals than a year of flying on your own still rings true, plus contests are a lot of fun.
>
>
>
> John Seaborn

Just for comparison sake:

1. Turnpoint
a) inside turnpoint radius - good
b) within 1 mile of turnpoint radius - graduated penalty
c) miss by more than one mile - landout

2. Gate (line) finish
a) cross finish line - good
b) fall short of finish line but on airport - good
c) fall short of finish line but off airport - landout

3. Cylinder finish
a) cross boundary at or above floor - good
b) up to 200' below floor - graduated penalty
c) below 200' below floor - landout

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, John Seaborn wrote:
> The finish ring is a fine. The relatively recent addition of the distance points only clause if 1 foot below some imagined point in space is the problem. It violates the policy of a graduated penalty as applied by most rules in soaring.
>
>
>
> Is the pilot who is 1 foot under the finish rings imagined point in space really several hundred points more dangerous? The problem is not typically related to gaming the energy but on those days with long, slow and perfectly safe arrivals with a few feet less altitude than needed to finish for speed points. Currently the penalty applied indicates the pilot who finishes at 499 feet rather than 500 has done some egregiously unsafe flying which he clearly has not.
>
>
>
> The strategy being encouraged is to stop and climb at some point even it is directly on the final glide path very close to the airport at a tenuously safe altitude rather than take a several hundred point penalty for being 1 foot lower than some imaged point in space. A graduated penalty similar to turnpoints is a much less punitive approach to this problem.
>
>
>
> My hats off to the Rules Committee members as they work hard on these issues and take a good deal of grief on occasion. As for contest flying generally the old saw about learning more about cross country soaring in an early regionals than a year of flying on your own still rings true, plus contests are a lot of fun.
>
>
>
> John Seaborn

Just for comparison sake:

1. Turnpoint
a) inside turnpoint radius - good
b) within 1 mile of turnpoint radius - graduated penalty
c) miss by more than one mile - landout

2. Gate (line) finish
a) cross finish line - good
b) fall short of finish line but on airport - good, possible time adjustment
c) fall short of finish line but off airport - landout

3. Cylinder finish
a) cross boundary at or above floor - good
b) up to 200' below floor - graduated penalty
c) below 200' below floor - landout

[Andrzej Kobus]

On May 25, 2:17*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)" >
wrote:
> On Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, John Seaborn wrote:
> > The finish ring is a fine. The relatively recent addition of the distance points only clause if 1 foot below some imagined point in space is the problem. It violates the policy of a graduated penalty as applied by most rules in soaring.
>
> > Is the pilot who is 1 foot under the finish rings imagined point in space really several hundred points more dangerous? The problem is not typically related to gaming the energy but on those days with long, slow and perfectly safe arrivals with a few feet less altitude than needed to finish for speed points. Currently the penalty applied indicates the pilot who finishes at 499 feet rather than 500 has done some egregiously unsafe flying which he clearly has not.
>
> > The strategy being encouraged is to stop and climb at some point even it is directly on the final glide path very close to the airport at a tenuously safe altitude rather than take a several hundred point penalty for being 1 foot lower than some imaged point in space. A graduated penalty similar to turnpoints is a much less punitive approach to this problem.
>
> > My hats off to the Rules Committee members as they work hard on these issues and take a good deal of grief on occasion. As for contest flying generally the old saw about learning more about cross country soaring in an early regionals than a year of flying on your own still rings true, plus contests are a lot of fun.
>
> > John Seaborn
>
> Just for comparison sake:
>
> 1. *Turnpoint
> * * a) inside turnpoint radius - good
> * * b) within 1 mile of turnpoint radius - graduated penalty
> * * c) miss by more than one mile - landout
>
> 2. *Gate (line) finish
> * * a) cross finish line - good
> * * b) fall short of finish line but on airport - good, possible time adjustment
> * * c) fall short of finish line but off airport - landout
>
> 3. *Cylinder finish
> * * a) cross boundary at or above floor - good
> * * b) up to 200' below floor - graduated penalty
> * * c) below 200' below floor - landout

Graduated penalty should be all the way to the ground!

3 (c) should be deleted. I always come back above the minimum height
(not because of rules, but because I don't have any replacement parts
for my body). If one of these days I find myself scoring a landout due
to unforeseen major sink but make the 1 mile at 499 feet I will be
totally ****ed.

An unintended consequence of this rule is some thermaling at 500 feet
a mile out to avoid landout. Someone might think I can make the
airport so why not try it, right. I guess next year we will see
another rule to address that until someone comes up with another way
to "avoid" a landout score.

If one does not have safety in his/her brain no rule is going to help.
BB please understand this!

If you personally want to come at 700 AGL then do it. I suspect you do
but since you don't want everyone else to get ahead of you by 200 feet
you want to make everyone come at 700 AGL. This is what this rule is
all about. I don't care I bring the 200 feet extra every day and that
is my choice I don't want to force other pilots to do the same.

Regards,
Andrzej