Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

[Sean F (F2)]

I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.

To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.

Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.

However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.

If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide.. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.

Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.

Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.

Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.

So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.

Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”

So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):

• Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.

• Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).

• Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?

Let the flame wars begin! ;-)

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?
>
>
>
> If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.
>
>
>
> To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.
>
>
>
> Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.
>
>
>
> However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.
>
>
>
> If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.
>
>
>
> Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.
>
>
>
> Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.
>
>
>
> Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.
>
>
>
> So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.
>
>
>
> Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”
>
>
>
> So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):
>
>
>
> • Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.
>
>
>
> • Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).
>
>
>
> • Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?
>
>
>
> Let the flame wars begin! ;-)

Sean, these are great points! I know of at least one more dangerous attempt to save points that happened last year.

Our RC needs to stop coming up with these "great" ideas. No more experiments. Please revert the rule back to the old formula and give it a rest.

[John Godfrey (QT)[_2_]]

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:33:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > • Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > • Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > • Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Let the flame wars begin! ;-)
>
>
>
> Sean, these are great points! I know of at least one more dangerous attempt to save points that happened last year.
>
>
>
> Our RC needs to stop coming up with these "great" ideas. No more experiments. Please revert the rule back to the old formula and give it a rest.

Please document this attempt (to me privately if you like)

John Godfrey (QT)
RC Chair

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:47:53 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
> On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:33:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > • Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > • Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > • Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Let the flame wars begin! ;-)
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean, these are great points! I know of at least one more dangerous attempt to save points that happened last year.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Our RC needs to stop coming up with these "great" ideas. No more experiments. Please revert the rule back to the old formula and give it a rest.
>
>
>
> Please document this attempt (to me privately if you like)
>
>
>
> John Godfrey (QT)
>
> RC Chair

The pilot did not endanger anyone so thank you for your offer but I have to decline. I can't even believe you are asking for this.

Please do not try to save people from themselves as you will never succeed. You are just making making our life difficult.

I never had a problem coming 300 feet higher only once ever I came just shy of 500 feet loosing my extra 300 feet. According to your rules I would have been a land out even though I exhibited right judgement.

You need to finally get this you are hurting the sport with constant tinkering!

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments. ----------------------------------------------------------- Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working? If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences. To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment. Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general. However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place. If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible. Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb. Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty. Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty. So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’. Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty.. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!” So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind): • Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400. • Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-). • Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200? Let the flame wars begin! ;-)

First , let me say that I like little in life more than a nice speed pass down the runway after a long challanging flight. That said, having observed pilot behavior since the implementation of the rule in the current form, I think the sport is safer than it was, or would be, without this rule.
I have had several pilots provide feedback that this rule made them choose
to abandon marginal final glides and land safely or to land "across the street" from the airport instead of trying to squeek onto the airport.
The decision height, to go or stop, has been raised by this rule philosophy which, in my view, is a positive thing for safety.
It is always possible to find examples such as the ones described above, but I submit that they are small in number and not representative of what most pilots will do.
The RC has been considering some changes to this rule that would tune it up without abandoning the philosophy. They are electing to make no changes, based upon the 1014 proposed rule changes, but will continue to look at this area of the rules.

UH
Former RC Chair

[Bravo Zulu]

I think Hank may have missed the main point of the article. The author is not proposing to lower the finish height, on the contrary, he would raise it. The issue centers on the penalty that seems to have the opposite effect of the intent of the rule.

I notice that all of the pilots in the examples started final glide with normal margins for safety. We can presume that the majority of pilots in these races finished above the MFH with no problems. The next crash pilot will not be among them, but the same could be said for a zero finish height. We all try to be safe in this sport and few start out to be low at the finish. The problem comes when we did everything right but conditions change in front of us and degrades the final glide to a point where we are faced with the conundrum of a big penalty or a hail mary.

Seems to me that if we make the penalty for finishing below MFH too high, we only increase the temptation to try the hail mary. Take the rule’s logic further and increase the penalty even more. Says the logic, “that will make people start final glide even higher and fewer people will finish low”. If we simply make the MFH high enough, there is little reason to have any penalty, since there would be little chance for an unsafe entry into the pattern. While that may be true, the problem occurs with those pilots who find themselves in deteriorating conditions that exceed their safety margin established in the final thermal. The counter logic offered by the author admits that the more valuable the finish, the more willing a contest pilot will be to try and pull off a save. Suppose the penalty for a 200´low finish was disqualification from the contest. Would not that cause more otherwise sane pilots to bow to the option of trying to pull it out with a low save?

On the other hand if the penalty were more modest, a hurt but still recoverable, discretion would drive one to accept the penalty and live to compete the next day. I agree with the author that the rule should include a higher MFH but with less of a penalty, thereby placing a lower value on missing the MFH. An additional point in favor of a less costly penalty, it helps the pilot focus on the pattern ahead rather than the altimeter.

There should be some penalty for a low finish but so not big as to give an incentive to attempt a last-mile save. Perhaps a bonus for finishing a bit high creates more value on that side of the line and promote more safety.

[[email protected]]

If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.

It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.


I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.

So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.

It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.

A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:24:53 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.
>
>
>
> It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.
>
>
>
> So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.
>
>
>
> It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.
>
>
>
> A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

I would like to add to BB's comments that for the last 2-3 years we had a 900' AGL, 1 mile finish rule at our Northern IL Soaring Contest (NISC)with otherwise reg. penalty points. In that season-long contest I have entered last year 21 flights of which I believe 2 received penalty points or a land-out score. Both of those were after final glides through dead air, bot finished above 500' at the 1 mile marker. I was never concerned about a safe landing. I second John's comments regarding moving up the fence rather than diluting the rules. The current rule-set already allows for the CD to set a higher finish alt.
Herb

[John Carlyle]

John C,

With regard to your post below, I think that a hard deck within 5 miles of the finish might be safer than the current MFH that goes up the further you get away from the finish. It would certainly a easier to calculate at a busy time.

On another subject, a while ago you expressed enthusiasm for the new (optional) regatta start. Given how concerned you are with safety, I'd be interested in hearing your feelings regarding the safety of this type of start compared to the way we start now. This is a serious attempt to learn, it's not intended to be snarky.

-John, Q3

On Monday, January 20, 2014 11:24:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.
>
> It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.
>
> I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.
>
> So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.
>
> It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.
>
> A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?
>
> John Cochrane

[Sean F (F2)]

John,

I was included on an email discussion thread which included the email which I posted last night. I thought it was important and decided to post here and invite broader discussion. I did not have "permission." I think the ID of the author is unimportant. I take responsibility for the post but also want to make sure that everyone knows that the (in my opinion excellent) email itself was not written by me. I cannot take credit for that.

The intent of posting is absolutely NOT to call the RC into question. I think the RC is doing an excellent job of managing the various "special interests" and trying to address safety issues and manage the rules with an eye towards fun, growth & attendance. I have deep respect for the job the RC does and has done even though I have clearly complained about some rules from time to time.

I agree, the 700 margin that is currently provided by the rule is probably to low. Here is my logic...

I think there are two basic options: 1) raise the height 2) lower the penalty (option 3 is to remove the rule entirely...but I am deeply concerned about that idea)

The problem with lowering the penalty is that the average contest pilot is (whether he/she admits it or not) going to fight to avoid a 25 points penalty, let alone 400. Getting the penalty formula "just right" so that the penalty is high enough to produce the desired behavior (encouraging the contest pilot to build in a greater risk buffer height before embarking on final glide) yet low enough to encourage the pilot to safely finish straight ahead if final glide degrades into the penalty zone is going to be VERY DIFFICULT for the RC and contest pilots to "negotiate". ;-)

I think some pilots would circle outside of the finish cylinder was finish penalty altitude was 200 ft and the penalty was 5 points. Its just the nature of competition and the fact that most of us get away with it.

Therefore we need enough margin to allow for safe circling outside the finish cylinder for this rule to not have "side effects" which are creating unintended risks. If there is a penalty, pilots are going to fight to avoid it. It's just that simple.

Sean

On Monday, January 20, 2014 11:24:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.
>
>
>
> It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.
>
>
>
> So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.
>
>
>
> It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.
>
>
>
> A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

[Sean F (F2)]

John,

I was included on an email discussion thread which included the email which I posted last night. I thought it was important and decided to post here and invite broader discussion. I did not have "permission." I think the ID of the author is unimportant. I take responsibility for the post but also want to make sure that everyone knows that the (in my opinion excellent) email itself was not written by me. I cannot take credit for that.

The intent of posting is absolutely NOT to call the RC into question. I think the RC is doing an excellent job of managing the various "special interests" and trying to address safety issues and manage the rules with an eye towards fun, growth & attendance. I have deep respect for the job the RC does and has done even though I have clearly complained about some rules from time to time.

I agree, the 700 margin that is currently provided by the rule is probably to low. Here is my logic...

I think there are two basic options: 1) raise the height 2) lower the penalty (option 3 is to remove the rule entirely...but I am deeply concerned about that idea)

The problem with lowering the penalty is that the average contest pilot is (whether he/she admits it or not) going to fight to avoid a 25 points penalty, let alone 400. Getting the penalty formula "just right" so that the penalty is high enough to produce the desired behavior (encouraging the contest pilot to build in a greater risk buffer height before embarking on final glide) yet low enough to encourage the pilot to safely finish straight ahead if final glide degrades into the penalty zone is going to be VERY DIFFICULT for the RC and US contest pilots to "negotiate". ;-)

I think some pilots would circle outside of the finish cylinder even if the finish penalty altitude was 200 ft and the penalty was 5 points. Its just the nature of competition and the fact that most of us get away with it most of the time. What's one circle going to hurt? Was that a bump? Etc, etc.

Therefore we need enough margin to allow for safe circling outside the finish cylinder for this rule to not have "side effects" which are creating unintended risks. If there is a penalty, pilots are going to fight to avoid it. It's just that simple.

Sean


On Monday, January 20, 2014 11:24:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.
>
>
>
> It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.
>
>
>
>
>
> I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.
>
>
>
> So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.
>
>
>
> It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.
>
>
>
> A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Why not use the total height?

So height (AGL) plus potential height (speed²/(2*a)) That makes ballistic pull-ups useless, allows, actually favors smooth finishes.

Then set the total height rather high and substract one point per feet too low.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:03:41 PM UTC-5, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
> Why not use the total height? So height (AGL) plus potential height (speed²/(2*a)) That makes ballistic pull-ups useless, allows, actually favors smooth finishes. Then set the total height rather high and substract one point per feet too low.

Simply put- because this becomes a pilot and scoring nightmare. Note that each glider converts kinetic energy to potential energy differently.
UH

[Luke Szczepaniak]

Rules can't fix stupid. For each reiteration of the rule set we pilots
will find a way to do something stupid with them, and so we spiral down
the rabbit hole of never ending rule changes that become more complex
every year. In my opinion the rules should be as simple as possible.
They should not promote dangerous behaviour, but their primary objective
is to provide a fair way to determine the best pilot. The simpler the
rules the more time the pilot has to worry about flying the aircraft.


Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 2:21:11 PM UTC-6, wrote:
> On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:03:41 PM UTC-5, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
>
> > Why not use the total height? So height (AGL) plus potential height (speed²/(2*a)) That makes ballistic pull-ups useless, allows, actually favors smooth finishes. Then set the total height rather high and substract one point per feet too low.
>
>
>
> Simply put- because this becomes a pilot and scoring nightmare. Note that each glider converts kinetic energy to potential energy differently.
>
> UH

UH answer is deep -- pay attention.

RC gets two constant demands. One, as in the original post, is to add carefully constructed point carpentry around the finish, with 10 points for this and 20 points for that. The other is to simplify the rules, and especially to make sure pilots don't need to do lots of strategizing and in-air calculations. As you come up with alternatives, make sure they satisfy simplicity and clarity too!

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 1:39:11 PM UTC-8, wrote:

> RC gets two constant demands. One, as in the original post, is to add carefully constructed point carpentry around the finish, with 10 points for this and 20 points for that. The other is to simplify the rules, and especially to make sure pilots don't need to do lots of strategizing and in-air calculations. As you come up with alternatives, make sure they satisfy simplicity and clarity too!
>
> John Cochrane

This particular issue has received scores of hours of thought, debate and analysis, including just about every conceivable scenario from the beginning of a final glide (below, at, and above optimal Mc final glide OR best L/D glide to the finish) and every major decision scenario as glides go bad (or don't get better - including able to make the cylinder but not the airport, vice-versa and under different penalty structures) ALSO various lift scenarios (none, less than current Mc, and climb rates all they way down to climbs so slow you are losing speed points faster than you lose penalty points). Zoomies at the edge, terrain in the last 10, 5 and 1 miles to the airport, proximity to a ridge, number of runways, configuration of the approach versus the finish, trees at the end of the runway and number of competitors trying to land at once with how much energy. It ALL gets assessed and debated, including the bizarre potential choices pilots might make (although pilots can be very creative in coming up with bizarre things - the analysis did include low circling to get up to finish height even right up to the edge of the cylinder). Then what gets discussed is which are likely versus unlikely scenarios and which ones are pilot decision issues versus places where the rules beg the pilot to take a chance in order to score more points. LASTLY it all gets put into the filter of don't change anything and make it simple (against the tide of requests for specific exceptions to handle odd cases).

In this case the higher order issues boiled down to: 1) The rules should not be set up to award points to pilots who cross the finish cylinder at an altitude from which it is unlikely that (s)he can safely reach the airport (including scenarios with the runway not lined up, into the wind and with trees), 2) Assess a modest penalty for most common glide gone wrong errors, such that a pilot would not ignore a reasonable-looking climb along the way on a marginal glide to MFH.

If you do the math what you find is if you allow (as we do) different finish heights and different sized finish circles you can end up with not much room between the bottom of the mild penalty and "can't get to the airport" height. A penalty structure that varies the steepness of the penalty depending on the cylinder radius and MFH is possible, but complex and was set aside as was restricting the finish height to 1000' or above as some sites with ridges like the flexibility to finish right off the ridge.

It's mostly documented in the RC notes. I'd be happy to take anyone through the "all the scenarios" analysis offline - there's a lot to think about before you boil it down to a set of simple rules and it's easy to fix one thing while braking something else.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:37:18 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, January 20, 2014 1:39:11 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
>
>
> > RC gets two constant demands. One, as in the original post, is to add carefully constructed point carpentry around the finish, with 10 points for this and 20 points for that. The other is to simplify the rules, and especially to make sure pilots don't need to do lots of strategizing and in-air calculations. As you come up with alternatives, make sure they satisfy simplicity and clarity too!
>
> >
>
> > John Cochrane
>
>
>
> This particular issue has received scores of hours of thought, debate and analysis, including just about every conceivable scenario from the beginning of a final glide (below, at, and above optimal Mc final glide OR best L/D glide to the finish) and every major decision scenario as glides go bad (or don't get better - including able to make the cylinder but not the airport, vice-versa and under different penalty structures) ALSO various lift scenarios (none, less than current Mc, and climb rates all they way down to climbs so slow you are losing speed points faster than you lose penalty points). Zoomies at the edge, terrain in the last 10, 5 and 1 miles to the airport, proximity to a ridge, number of runways, configuration of the approach versus the finish, trees at the end of the runway and number of competitors trying to land at once with how much energy. It ALL gets assessed and debated, including the bizarre potential choices pilots might make (although pilots can be very creative in coming up with bizarre things - the analysis did include low circling to get up to finish height even right up to the edge of the cylinder). Then what gets discussed is which are likely versus unlikely scenarios and which ones are pilot decision issues versus places where the rules beg the pilot to take a chance in order to score more points. LASTLY it all gets put into the filter of don't change anything and make it simple (against the tide of requests for specific exceptions to handle odd cases).
>
>
>
> In this case the higher order issues boiled down to: 1) The rules should not be set up to award points to pilots who cross the finish cylinder at an altitude from which it is unlikely that (s)he can safely reach the airport (including scenarios with the runway not lined up, into the wind and with trees), 2) Assess a modest penalty for most common glide gone wrong errors, such that a pilot would not ignore a reasonable-looking climb along the way on a marginal glide to MFH.
>
>
>
> If you do the math what you find is if you allow (as we do) different finish heights and different sized finish circles you can end up with not much room between the bottom of the mild penalty and "can't get to the airport" height. A penalty structure that varies the steepness of the penalty depending on the cylinder radius and MFH is possible, but complex and was set aside as was restricting the finish height to 1000' or above as some sites with ridges like the flexibility to finish right off the ridge.
>
>
>
> It's mostly documented in the RC notes. I'd be happy to take anyone through the "all the scenarios" analysis offline - there's a lot to think about before you boil it down to a set of simple rules and it's easy to fix one thing while braking something else.
>
>
>
> 9B

Clearly there was a big departure from gradual penalty to the land out penalty. Big change that moved the dangerous flying outside the finish cylinder.. Why the land out penalty. I don't think the land out penalty was well thought through.

The land out penalty should be rolled back and gradual penalty should come back if any.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:12:21 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> Clearly there was a big departure from gradual penalty to the land out penalty. Big change that moved the dangerous flying outside the finish cylinder. Why the land out penalty. I don't think the land out penalty was well thought through.
>
> The land out penalty should be rolled back and gradual penalty should come back if any.

It mostly boils down to whether you believe there should be a significant points benefit for making a finish at an altitude from which it is impossible to reach the airport. That's a powerful incentive to roll the dice. Should winning hinge on betting your glider (and your life) in exchange for points in that way?

The rest is just math - and how low you set MFH.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 9:04:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> On Monday, January 20, 2014 5:12:21 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> >
>
> > Clearly there was a big departure from gradual penalty to the land out penalty. Big change that moved the dangerous flying outside the finish cylinder. Why the land out penalty. I don't think the land out penalty was well thought through.
>
> >
>
> > The land out penalty should be rolled back and gradual penalty should come back if any.
>
>
>
> It mostly boils down to whether you believe there should be a significant points benefit for making a finish at an altitude from which it is impossible to reach the airport. That's a powerful incentive to roll the dice. Should winning hinge on betting your glider (and your life) in exchange for points in that way?
>
>
>
> The rest is just math - and how low you set MFH.
>
>
>
> 9B

You did not provide a logical reason why this big change (scoring as land out) was made rather then just raising the finish height and leaving gradual penalty.

You did not address any problem you just moved the problem somewhere else.

[[email protected]]

>
> You did not provide a logical reason why this big change (scoring as land out) was made rather then just raising the finish height and leaving gradual penalty.

The point of scoring low finishes as a landout is real simple. When you're deciding "shall I land in the last good field or press on" at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet, it needs to be crystal clear that you will gain nothing by pressing on. This is not safety legislation -- points are off the table, make a good decision, points are the same either way. With a graduated penalty there is always some benefit to pressing on. And complexity. Didn't you guys want simple rules? Try figuring out the points to finish 397 feet low.

It just moves the hard ground down. You used to be scored as a landout -- with none of this mollycoddling graduated penalties -- if you missed the fence by a foot.

Don't think of it as a "penalty." The task is to start below (say) 5000', get inside three turnpoints, and finish no less than (say) 700'. If you didn't do that, you didn't fly the same race as everyone else. In what other sport can you miss the finish line by 200 feet and still get a "finish?" And want more?

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

Have there been quite a few serious accidents (injury or fatality) from stretching a final glide in US contests? I know of one fatality years ago but the pilot had plenty of altitude to land straight ahead and instead attempted a low pass and pattern with insufficient altitude. Just wanted to make certain that this is not a solution in search of a problem.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:42:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> You did not provide a logical reason why this big change (scoring as land out) was made rather then just raising the finish height and leaving gradual penalty.
>
The reason and logic and review and deliberation is in the RC meeting notes.. To recap:

Logical reason is you should not present competitors with a situation where they can score higher points by deciding to go for the finish cylinder at an altitude from which they cannot reach the airport.

You are correct, you could set (based on current rules for max distance from the airport and max radius of the finish cylinder) a mandatory MFH of around 1250' and a graduated penalty of around a point per foot. If you force a smaller, closer finish cylinder you can bring MFH down a bit, but there are serious objections to a higher MFH based on airport configuration, proximity to ridge, etc.

Again, If this explanation doesn't suffice I'd be happy to walk anyone through the math and logic offline.

9B

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Op maandag 20 januari 2014 21:21:11 UTC+1 schreef :

On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:03:41 PM UTC-5, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
> Why not use the total height? So height (AGL) plus potential height (speed²/(2*a)) That makes ballistic pull-ups useless, allows, actually favors smooth finishes. Then set the total height rather high and substract one point per feet too low.

Simply put- because this becomes a pilot and scoring nightmare. Note that each glider converts kinetic energy to potential energy differently.
UH


Not really; in fact they do it exactly the same way. Even an unballasted club class glider looses only a few percent (due to drag during the pull-up). Since virtually all pilots fly with a TE energy system and rely exclusively on it, I highly doubt it'd be a pilots nightmare.

The ideal finish with a fixed height finish line/circle (or point substraction when too low) is fairly straightforward; fly at best MC, say 100 kts and pull up agressively, just before the finish ring. Exactly the opposite of what you'd want...

A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:14:15 AM UTC-5, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
> Op maandag 20 januari 2014 21:21:11 UTC+1 schreef : On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:03:41 PM UTC-5, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote: > Why not use the total height? So height (AGL) plus potential height (speed²/(2*a)) That makes ballistic pull-ups useless, allows, actually favors smooth finishes. Then set the total height rather high and substract one point per feet too low. Simply put- because this becomes a pilot and scoring nightmare. Note that each glider converts kinetic energy to potential energy differently. UH Not really; in fact they do it exactly the same way. Even an unballasted club class glider looses only a few percent (due to drag during the pull-up). Since virtually all pilots fly with a TE energy system and rely exclusively on it, I highly doubt it'd be a pilots nightmare. The ideal finish with a fixed height finish line/circle (or point substraction when too low) is fairly straightforward; fly at best MC, say 100 kts and pull up agressively, just before the finish ring. Exactly the opposite of what you'd want... A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.

You are suggesting an alternative that requires computation in the cockpit to allow for kinetic energy and then asking the scorer to do the same. The current systems use direct measurement of one attribute (height) measured with a simple existing instrument and easily verifiable by the scorer.
The glide final scenario you describe is actaully not optimum. A perfectly flown ending has the glider at a fairly low speed, roughly the average speed for the task,and does not have a big pull up.
UH

[[email protected]]

> A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.

This is indeed a simple and better alternative. It eliminates all this worry about pilots thermaling low to get over the edge, as well as last minute pull ups. (A pull up to get over the hard deck won't work, as you will run out of energy.)

We don't have it, because you see the uproar that a simple finish cylinder is causing. Mention the words "hard deck" -- even just a doughnut at 500 feet AGL, 4 miles around the airport -- and there will be RAS apoplexy. I brought it up once, and the rest of the RC pointed out wisely that if I wanted to go get tarred and feathered that was fine, but they weren't going to join me.

Don't do big pull ups at the finish!

Once, approaching Hobbs at about 70 knots -- I was on a pretty marginal glide to the cylinder -- about 1.1 miles out a glider rose up right in front of me. He had passed me below at high speed, somehow missed the glider above him (me). Staring at the airport on final glide is common. At the moment of the pull up, I couldn't see him -- I'm above -- and he couldn't see me -- now behind his tail.

When you do a big pull up, there is no way to see who is above and behind you!

John Cochrane

[Sean F (F2)]

Personally, I kinda like this 4 mile hard deck idea. It is simple to understand and solves a real problem. The idea of pull ups at 1 mile and 700 ft AGL is a little terrifying. The hard deck would certainly prevent that potential behavior.

On the other hand, (devil's advocate), the high points risk associated with flying out over the hard deck with low energy would result in the same "save it" circling just outside of the 4 miles hard deck "shelf" instead of 1 mile finish circle. The good news is the gliders would be slightly higher at 4 miles.

Would this hard deck be 500 AGL (penalty penalty) or 700AGL (finish height)?

Sean

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:53:46 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.
>
>
>
> This is indeed a simple and better alternative. It eliminates all this worry about pilots thermaling low to get over the edge, as well as last minute pull ups. (A pull up to get over the hard deck won't work, as you will run out of energy.)
>
>
>
> We don't have it, because you see the uproar that a simple finish cylinder is causing. Mention the words "hard deck" -- even just a doughnut at 500 feet AGL, 4 miles around the airport -- and there will be RAS apoplexy. I brought it up once, and the rest of the RC pointed out wisely that if I wanted to go get tarred and feathered that was fine, but they weren't going to join me.
>
>
>
> Don't do big pull ups at the finish!
>
>
>
> Once, approaching Hobbs at about 70 knots -- I was on a pretty marginal glide to the cylinder -- about 1.1 miles out a glider rose up right in front of me. He had passed me below at high speed, somehow missed the glider above him (me). Staring at the airport on final glide is common. At the moment of the pull up, I couldn't see him -- I'm above -- and he couldn't see me -- now behind his tail.
>
>
>
> When you do a big pull up, there is no way to see who is above and behind you!
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

[Luke Szczepaniak]

A hard deck in a 4 mile radius doesn't resolve the issue, only moves the
problem further away from the airport. The only solution is a hard deck
throughout the task area - but wait... what about mountain sites, that's
OK, we will come up with a separate rule for that when we get there :).

Cheers,
Luke

PS: I am not advocating a hard deck throughout the task area.. I am
just trying to demonstrate what happens when we move the responsibility
of flight safety from the PIC to the RC...



On 01/21/2014 11:50 AM, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Personally, I kinda like this 4 mile hard deck idea. It is simple to understand and solves a real problem. The idea of pull ups at 1 mile and 700 ft AGL is a little terrifying. The hard deck would certainly prevent that potential behavior.
>
> On the other hand, (devil's advocate), the high points risk associated with flying out over the hard deck with low energy would result in the same "save it" circling just outside of the 4 miles hard deck "shelf" instead of 1 mile finish circle. The good news is the gliders would be slightly higher at 4 miles.
>
> Would this hard deck be 500 AGL (penalty penalty) or 700AGL (finish height)?
>
> Sean
>
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:53:46 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>>> A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.
>>
>>
>>
>> This is indeed a simple and better alternative. It eliminates all this worry about pilots thermaling low to get over the edge, as well as last minute pull ups. (A pull up to get over the hard deck won't work, as you will run out of energy.)
>>
>>
>>
>> We don't have it, because you see the uproar that a simple finish cylinder is causing. Mention the words "hard deck" -- even just a doughnut at 500 feet AGL, 4 miles around the airport -- and there will be RAS apoplexy. I brought it up once, and the rest of the RC pointed out wisely that if I wanted to go get tarred and feathered that was fine, but they weren't going to join me.
>>
>>
>>
>> Don't do big pull ups at the finish!
>>
>>
>>
>> Once, approaching Hobbs at about 70 knots -- I was on a pretty marginal glide to the cylinder -- about 1.1 miles out a glider rose up right in front of me. He had passed me below at high speed, somehow missed the glider above him (me). Staring at the airport on final glide is common. At the moment of the pull up, I couldn't see him -- I'm above -- and he couldn't see me -- now behind his tail.
>>
>>
>>
>> When you do a big pull up, there is no way to see who is above and behind you!
>>
>>
>>
>> John Cochrane

[Andy Gough[_2_]]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:46:33 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> A hard deck in a 4 mile radius doesn't resolve the issue, only moves the
>
> problem further away from the airport.


I'm with John and Sean on this one. Simple, no need to calculate points and easy for contest management to set realistic and acceptable limits for their site. The risks associated with thermaling attempts low down are mitigated.

For the height calculation at 4 miles out, pick a glide angle that covers the gliders flying in a class, e.g. Height lost at nominal value 35:1 glide angle over 4 miles, round number 600 ft. Add minimum circuit height of let's say 600ft and the number is 1,200 ft for a 4 mile finish ring. Change the numbers up or down by changing the glide angle component and/or the minimum circuit height values, it's a contest management decision.

This is pretty much what we do for a weather safety finish, once you hit the ring the race is over and points are in the bag, no need to take any more risks and plenty of height to make a decision. If the issue is safety, what's stopping us going ahead other than the rules committee's reluctance to have their feet held to the fire. I have removed my shoes and socks, light the burners.

[Bravo Zulu]

I can appreciate Hank Nixon’s idea that the rule should be clear and simple. I have little background in this particular issue but what I have not seen yet is the data that supports a fixed 200-foot penalty zone as opposed to some other number between the MFH and the land out. The only thing I see in the rule notes is that the 200’ value was established to accommodate instrument error.

As I understand A10.9.2.2, the CD determines the altitude at one mile from which a safe landing at the contest airport can be made (normally considered 500’ plus adjustments for other traffic, terrain etc). The rule establishes the MFH as that altitude plus 200’ and requires all pilots to finish at MFH or incur a penalty that is graduated over 200’. A finish at MFH minus 201’ is scored as a land out, thereby costing as much as 400 points.

If the goal of the rule is to prevent low-save attempts near the airport, why not increase the “penalty-zone width”, (my term) from the current 200’ to say, for example, 500’ and spread the penalty points out over the 500’. If most pilots start the final glide with MFH + glide alt required + 500 margin, then the FG would have to degrade to the point that the pilot suffers a loss of an extra 1000’ before going below the land-out altitude at 1 mile.

If this rule were implemented for the 2014 season, there might well be an increase in finish penalties but there should be a marked decrease in low-save attempts on FG or land-out attempts resulting from them. Following John Cochran’s point, I expect that most pilots would accept a small penalty rather than attempt a risky save. If my expectations prove to be supported by future data analysis, then the administrative land-out part of the rule might be rendered obsolete.

The other point I would make is that even a small finish penalty (FP) collected many times will significantly reduce a pilot’s competitive standing. Eventually, even the slow-thinking racers will figure out that they are better off coming in a bit high than a bit low.

Seems to me that simply increasing the size of the “penalty zone” from 200’ to a larger value, say 500’, satisfies everyone. It is simple and clear, easy to implement, increases safety, and reduces the incentive to attempt a low save near the airport.

BZ

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:53:44 PM UTC-5, Bravo Zulu wrote:
> I can appreciate Hank Nixon’s idea that the rule should be clear and simple. I have little background in this particular issue but what I have not seen yet is the data that supports a fixed 200-foot penalty zone as opposed to some other number between the MFH and the land out. The only thing I see in the rule notes is that the 200’ value was established to accommodate instrument error. As I understand A10.9.2.2, the CD determines the altitude at one mile from which a safe landing at the contest airport can be made (normally considered 500’ plus adjustments for other traffic, terrain etc). The rule establishes the MFH as that altitude plus 200’ and requires all pilots to finish at MFH or incur a penalty that is graduated over 200’. A finish at MFH minus 201’ is scored as a land out, thereby costing as much as 400 points. If the goal of the rule is to prevent low-save attempts near the airport, why not increase the “penalty-zone width”, (my term) from the current 200’ to say, for example, 500’ and spread the penalty points out over the 500’. If most pilots start the final glide with MFH + glide alt required + 500 margin, then the FG would have to degrade to the point that the pilot suffers a loss of an extra 1000’ before going below the land-out altitude at 1 mile. If this rule were implemented for the 2014 season, there might well be an increase in finish penalties but there should be a marked decrease in low-save attempts on FG or land-out attempts resulting from them. Following John Cochran’s point, I expect that most pilots would accept a small penalty rather than attempt a risky save. If my expectations prove to be supported by future data analysis, then the administrative land-out part of the rule might be rendered obsolete. The other point I would make is that even a small finish penalty (FP) collected many times will significantly reduce a pilot’s competitive standing. Eventually, even the slow-thinking racers will figure out that they are better off coming in a bit high than a bit low. Seems to me that simply increasing the size of the “penalty zone” from 200’ to a larger value, say 500’, satisfies everyone. It is simple and clear, easy to implement, increases safety, and reduces the incentive to attempt a low save near the airport. BZ

I'm unclear by what BZ describes whether he is suggesting raising the top(1000 ft finish with 500 ft landout threshold, or lowering the bottom. Clearly the latter is less safe.
The 2014 rules changes reflect no changes in finish rules or scoring.
This general topic, not focused on this one sub set of the issue, was polled in 2013. One option described was a larger range over which score reduction might occur. Given no poll mandate for quich change, and mindful of the effect that changes have, the RC, wisely in my view, elected to stand pat for now.
The issue of pilots circling up tp avoid a land out score seems, to me, to be small compared to the overall safety benefit of the rules as currently used.
Sean raised this as a useful discussion point. Maybe some folks will understand a bit more about this now.
FWIW
UH

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:46:33 PM UTC-6, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> A hard deck in a 4 mile radius doesn't resolve the issue, only moves the
> problem further away from the airport. The only solution is a hard deck
> throughout the task area - but wait... what about mountain sites, that's
> OK, we will come up with a separate rule for that when we get there :).
>
> Cheers,
>
> Luke
>
>
> PS: I am not advocating a hard deck throughout the task area.. I am
> just trying to demonstrate what happens when we move the responsibility
> of flight safety from the PIC to the RC...
>
>

I don't want to start this pointless argument, but let's at least get the facts straight.

A hard deck sits over the valley floor. Mountains stick out. A hard deck is defined by SUA files, so varying valley floor is not a problem. There is no technical problem in using hard deck for mountain sites. Yes, the hard deck does nothing about crashing in to mountains or low thermaling over ridges. You'll have to do some PIC work.

A hard deck does the opposite of "move the responsibility of flight safety from the PIC to the RC." Under current rules, when you're at 500 feet, the RC says loudly "come on, thermal away, we give you hundreds of points if you pull it off." Under a hard deck, at 500 feet the RC says "we are not going to bias your decision either way. Thermal out, land, do what's safest. You are PIC. You get the same points no matter what you do."

How you can possibly construe this to be taking "responsibility for flight safety" is beyond me. Think just a little bit.

Again, I do not want to start a hard deck war. Pilots have spoken, and do not want it. But let us not pass around pure silliness on the subject. A hard deck is straightforward to implement in ridge and mountain sites. A hard deck does not tell the pilot what to do, it merely removes the current big point bonus for one decision.

Choose not to have a hard deck because you like winning and losing races at 300 feet, not because of false facts and rumors.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:20:15 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> >
>
> > You did not provide a logical reason why this big change (scoring as land out) was made rather then just raising the finish height and leaving gradual penalty.
>
>
>
> The point of scoring low finishes as a landout is real simple. When you're deciding "shall I land in the last good field or press on" at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet, it needs to be crystal clear that you will gain nothing by pressing on. This is not safety legislation -- points are off the table, make a good decision, points are the same either way. With a graduated penalty there is always some benefit to pressing on. And complexity. Didn't you guys want simple rules? Try figuring out the points to finish 397 feet low.
>
>
>
> It just moves the hard ground down. You used to be scored as a landout -- with none of this mollycoddling graduated penalties -- if you missed the fence by a foot.
>
>
>
> Don't think of it as a "penalty." The task is to start below (say) 5000', get inside three turnpoints, and finish no less than (say) 700'. If you didn't do that, you didn't fly the same race as everyone else. In what other sport can you miss the finish line by 200 feet and still get a "finish?" And want more?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

John, you are saying this is not "a safety legislature" then what is it? What was the purpose of this change, more fun?

This rule does not change behavior. If old rules were in effect a pilot would try to make it to the field and he would get there say at 450 feet (safe).

According to the new rule he thinks he can not loose so many points by being scored as land out. So what does he do? He says oh well I am going to try to thermal low on final glide in hope of finding the missing points instead of ending up safely at the field at 450 feet and accepting penalty according the old rules.

This rule creates a bad incentive. You just changed one not so bad situation for much worse.

You just can't fix the world. Smart pilot will think about going home safely to his family a not so smart pilot will take risks no matter what.

Let's not cry out about how bad finishes are in Europe. We already had the 500 feet we did not need any more improvement. What is next? This never ends like it did not end on 500 feet.

[Bravo Zulu]

Hank Nixon wrote:
I'm unclear by what BZ describes whether he is suggesting raising the top(1000 ft finish with 500 ft landout threshold, or lowering the bottom. Clearly the latter is less safe.

I am not suggesting that the RC lower the bottom but rather raise the top of the “penalty zone”. As I read the RC notes concerning proposed rule changes on the SSA website, it says in part:
Guidance Revised: Setting Minimum Finish Height
This amends the guidance to highlight the need to consider additional factors

The notes suggest to me that the CD has great latitude on setting the MFH depending on the competition site and other considerations. It defines the MFH as “the minimum height for a penalty-free finish.” The notes continue, “Because a valid finish (with a very small penalty) may be up to 200’ below the MFH (to accommodate instrumentation errors),it is this lower height that should be considered when setting the MFH. Thus in the absence of
landability, traffic, or other concerns, the MFH should normally be 700’ AGL at a mile, which
avoids creating a big step in points (landout rather than speed finish) at 300 ft AGL leaves even
the lowest valid finisher with 500’ for a pattern and landing.

I read that is the minimum altitude to avoid a land out is “normally 500’ with a “penalty zone” of 200’ more. I am simply suggesting that the rule could be improved by adding 300’ to the fixed 200’ as a “penalty zone”. That would preserve the accommodation for instrument error and add an additional measure of safety. It would also make the accumulation of penalty points for a slightly low finish more gradual. My suggestion of a 500’ “penalty zone” was just an example. The RC could pick another number if it were more efficacious. The bigger it is the more gradual the accumulation of penalty points would be. The effect is that for a small error in arrival height there is less incentive to attempt a low save. Finding oneself 200’ lower that intended is more likely than being 500’ lower.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:41:35 PM UTC-8, Bravo Zulu wrote:

"I read that is the minimum altitude to avoid a land out is “normally 500’ with a “penalty zone” of 200’ more. I am simply suggesting that the rule could be improved by adding 300’ to the fixed 200’ as a “penalty zone”. That would preserve the accommodation for instrument error and add an additional measure of safety. It would also make the accumulation of penalty points for a slightly low finish more gradual. My suggestion of a 500’ “penalty zone” was just an example. The RC could pick another number if it were more efficacious. The bigger it is the more gradual the accumulation of penalty points would be. The effect is that for a small error in arrival height there is less incentive to attempt a low save. Finding oneself 200’ lower that intended is more likely than being 500’ lower."


Deep breath. Lots to discuss here.

In the interest of exposing some of the richness of the issues for those of you who are interested enough to dig into the actual details that inform these decisions, here we go.

There are three main objectives for setting rules around finish height and then a bunch of considerations. In rough order of priority:

1) The top objective is to make sure that pilots set up enough altitude buffer to get home without hitting the dirt under most scenarios of unexpected sink, headwind, etc. A decent MFH does this pretty well so long as it includes a penalty that costs more than the speed points lost from stopping to climb in a weak thermal. (Otherwise pilots gain points by ignoring thermals below the break-even climb rate for the penalty gradient). This is the highest order pilot decision - setting up the glide is at the top of the final glide decision chain. The penalty is fundamental - without a penalty structure MFH is practically meaningless. If you want to have all pilots set a 1000' arrival you need around 100-200 points per 1000' at stake to create an incentive in favor of climbing in a weak thermal rather than pressing on.

2) A related, but separate, second objective is to not create a points temptation to go for the finish cylinder at a height from which you cannot safely make the airport - instead of picking a decent field while you have a little altitude. This is mostly a "glide gone wrong" or "glide that was never right" scenario and is a totally different pilot decision from #1. This minimum safe altitude is, as has been pointed out, around 400-500' a mile out, depending on the airport configuration. Therefore, the penalty for 500' or below needs to be around 400 points to get rid of the points incentive to press on. That means you need to spread 400 points of penalty over the difference between MFH and 500 feet. That's 0.8 points per foot for a MFH of 1000'. If you set a 700' MFH you need to use 2.0 points per foot and if you set a 501' MFH it's 400 points per foot.

3) A third objective is to not encourage pilots to thermal low. This objective is subordinate to the other two in part because it conflicts with the other two and because it's pretty clear that having everyone finish at zero feet is not a good solution to not having people thermal low. Any MFH with a penalty will yield some situations where a pilot would prefer no penalty to any penalty and will try to climb up to get out of the penalty zone. The old rule, BTW, also had this feature only with fewer points at stake. It is not clear how many pilots would reject a climb to avoid a 50 or 100 point penalty but would take the same climb when the penalty is 400 points, maybe some, but experience indicates that many pilots would take a climb at 500' for to save a small number of points.

Then there are additional considerations that shape the final solution. People hate complexity so having a variable penalty based on MFH was set aside as was restricting the MFH to 1000' because some sites need MFH lower mostly to accommodate ridge tasks. One to two points per foot was viewed by many pilots as draconian small misses so a more gentle penalty was put in place for the first 200'.

After all these additional considerations you are left with basically no room for further graduation of the penalty for MFH<700' - and a pretty steep gradient even for MFH=1000'.

Also worth pointing out, the old rule only addressed the first objective, not the second or third. The new rule addresses the first and second, but not the third. Adding a 500' hard deck for 5+ miles around the finish (either to the current rule or some steeply graduated variation) would address the first two plus mitigate the third quite a bit because you'd push the problem out so far that any pilot who is facing it is already in a landout situation. Not sure the pilot community is supportive of a hard deck, even a small one around the finish, but I'd be curious to know if it's viewed as worth it in order to reduce the low thermalling temptation.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:17:10 PM UTC-8, wrote:

> Also worth pointing out, the old rule only addressed the first objective, not the second or third. The new rule addresses the first and second, but not the third. Adding a 500' hard deck for 5+ miles around the finish (either to the current rule or some steeply graduated variation) would address the first two plus mitigate the third quite a bit because you'd push the problem out so far that any pilot who is facing it is already in a landout situation. Not sure the pilot community is supportive of a hard deck, even a small one around the finish, but I'd be curious to know if it's viewed as worth it in order to reduce the low thermalling temptation.
>

A correction - the 5 mi/500' hard deck would not necessarily require a steeply graduated penalty above 500'. You can allow a modest penalty gradient for the entire distance between 500' and MFH, not just the first 200'.

You probably want the hard deck out at least 5 miles so even the most optimistic pilot who reaches the top edge of the deck will already know (s)he's not making the airport.

9B

[Tim Taylor]

Unfortunately the rules committee has failed to reverse a very unpopular rule change. It was clear by the overwhelming negative vote at 15M nats that the pilots don't like it.

Why not make a simple rule that gives a penalty for a finish lower than the official finish height and leave the rest alone.

How about this

1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.

You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.

This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
> How about this
>
> 1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.
>
> You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.
>
> This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.

Hi Tim,

Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.

Andy

[J. Nieuwenhuize]

Op dinsdag 21 januari 2014 14:28:50 UTC+1 schreef :
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:14:15 AM UTC-5, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote:
>
> > Op maandag 20 januari 2014 21:21:11 UTC+1 schreef : On Monday, January 20, 2014 3:03:41 PM UTC-5, J. Nieuwenhuize wrote: > Why not use the total height? So height (AGL) plus potential height (speed²/(2*a)) That makes ballistic pull-ups useless, allows, actually favors smooth finishes. Then set the total height rather high and substract one point per feet too low. Simply put- because this becomes a pilot and scoring nightmare. Note that each glider converts kinetic energy to potential energy differently. UH Not really; in fact they do it exactly the same way. Even an unballasted club class glider looses only a few percent (due to drag during the pull-up). Since virtually all pilots fly with a TE energy system and rely exclusively on it, I highly doubt it'd be a pilots nightmare. The ideal finish with a fixed height finish line/circle (or point substraction when too low) is fairly straightforward; fly at best MC, say 100 kts and pull up agressively, just before the finish ring. Exactly the opposite of what you'd want... A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.
>
>
>
> You are suggesting an alternative that requires computation in the cockpit to allow for kinetic energy and then asking the scorer to do the same. The current systems use direct measurement of one attribute (height) measured with a simple existing instrument and easily verifiable by the scorer.
If you dumb it down enough, there'll be a point where it's a simple "get up and fly as far as you can". YMMV, but the hard deck is a simple alternative, to which I can't see any major drawbacks..
> The glide final scenario you describe is actaully not optimum. A perfectly flown ending has the glider at a fairly low speed, roughly the average speed for the task,and does not have a big pull up.
Yes, it is the optimum. If you fly from a given point A with a given lift to a given point B, ignoring sink or lift during the final glide, flying mac-Cready, while decreasing the altitude of point B with the potential height from the given MC gives the smalles time and thus the highest speed. Then you'd fly @ MC till you're below point B and pull up vertical. With a ground-level finish this is impossible, but flying MC until you're near the ground and coasting out in ground effect then is optimum (least time taken=>highest speed)

[Andrew Brayer]

Could we please just raise the finish height to 2000 feet and get it over with? i'll just do contest style finishes when i'm not at contests.

having made my sarcastic remark, I do appreciate the efforts to make this sport safer. the problem is you cannot prevent accidents universally, this is aviation and racing combined. Instead we need to encourage pilots to make safe decisions rather than trying to protect everyone by implementing rules.

my two cents.

[Sean F (F2)]

2000 ft is a little high ;-), but (based on the discussion within this thread) we definitely need to consider moving MFH and any hard deck up to just above a mutually agreed "safe circling altitude." This minimum acceptable safe circling altitude is the key. I think we all agree that any finish height rule is absolutely going to cause a certain subset of pilots to instinctively try and save their points just outside the distance barrier and just below the penalty altitude.

1200 feet AGL is probably the right MFH (with graduated penalties down to 1000 AGL) as a stall spin is PROBABLY recoverable from 800 - 900 feet in most gliders. This is where the gliders "caught" by this rule will be "doing their dance!"

At 18 meter nationals last summer (due to the nature of the finishes and the lack of acceptable landing options surrounding the airfield) the MFH was moved up mid contest. There was luke warm debate although the CD managed the discussion very eloquently. Ultimately, a vote was taken and the result was in favor of raising the MFH. I think it was moved from 700 to 800 AGL.. It might have been higher. I do not remember.

1200 ft, is only 400 above 18m Nationals last summer. Clearly, it offers a greater cushion should the unthinkable happen and someone spins...

Of course, the other alternative is simply to remove this rule altogether and just allow the pilots to make their own choices. It is a quite a pickle....

Personally, I am open to both options. What I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location.

Sean
F2

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:18:32 AM UTC-5, Andrew Brayer wrote:
> Could we please just raise the finish height to 2000 feet and get it over with? i'll just do contest style finishes when i'm not at contests.
>
>
>
> having made my sarcastic remark, I do appreciate the efforts to make this sport safer. the problem is you cannot prevent accidents universally, this is aviation and racing combined. Instead we need to encourage pilots to make safe decisions rather than trying to protect everyone by implementing rules.
>
>
>
> my two cents.

[[email protected]]

> PWhat I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location.
>

What I don't get is why circling at 500 feet to make it over the finish line is a qualitatively different thing than circling at 500 feet to avoid a landout. If you want a hard deck, ask for a hard deck.

A hard deck is available by waiver if any CD wants to try it, BTW. Just ask. A hard deck donut is available by waiver if you want to try that too. For higher finishes, just ask the CD.

John Cochrane

[Bravo Zulu]

In response to 9B:
The original post that started this discussion provided some data indicating that the current rule is not working as well as hoped in certain situations, and made some suggestions that might improve it.

As to the hard deck idea, I do not understand how that will affect a pilot who is faced with a deteriorating final glide that places him near the land-out penalty altitude just outside the finish circle. He will have been above any proposed hard deck all the way. A pilot who is watching the final glide knows early on that he might not make the MFH and is looking for lift all the way. The crunch comes in the last mile or so when he has not found it and is now looking to avoid a big penalty, as described (with concrete examples) in the original post.

The original post suggested increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’, thereby reducing the per foot penalty and providing more incentive to continue to a safe landing. In light of the excellent explanation from 9B about the RC’s deliberations leading to the current rule, I would appreciate his opinion as to how increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’ (with a commensurate increase in the MFH) would effect the pilot’s decision in the case of a degrading final glide where the pilot can still make the field safety but is facing a land-out finish penalty. It would seem to me that decreasing the penalty for a low (but safely above the bottom of the PZ) entry would increase the motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than stopping to thermal at an unsafe altitude. Imagine a pilot facing a small penalty for a busted glide vs the same pilot facing a huge penalty; which has the stronger motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than attempting a 'hail Mary' play?

I still suggest that we increase the width of the penalty zone as above for the 2014 season. This would be a trivial change to implement, and has the virtue that its effects can be easily measured and compared to prior-year data.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

Well we've certainly come a long way from the "plea for a 500' finish".

Guys: it's a MINIMUM finish height. If you feel you need 1200 agl to be safe (there are days like that at some sites), you plan accordingly.

The story from 18s last year is bizarre. Anyone so focused on hitting MFT at minimum speed that they subsequently discover their airport arrival, pattern, sequencing and landing is compromised is just being irresponsible. If your airport arrival planning suggests higher than MFH, you just better damned well do it. Absent a really silly high MFH, these are concurrent, not serial tasks.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Andrew Brayer]

> Of course, the other alternative is simply to remove this rule altogether and just allow the pilots to make their own choices. It is a quite a pickle...
>
>
>
> Personally, I am open to both options. What I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location.
>
>
>
> Sean


I have to agree. and anyone who circles BELOW 500 when they're that close to the field is a schmuck.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:48:44 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> 2000 ft is a little high ;-), but (based on the discussion within this thread) we definitely need to consider moving MFH and any hard deck up to just above a mutually agreed "safe circling altitude." This minimum acceptable safe circling altitude is the key. I think we all agree that any finish height rule is absolutely going to cause a certain subset of pilots to instinctively try and save their points just outside the distance barrier and just below the penalty altitude. 1200 feet AGL is probably the right MFH (with graduated penalties down to 1000 AGL) as a stall spin is PROBABLY recoverable from 800 - 900 feet in most gliders. This is where the gliders "caught" by this rule will be "doing their dance!" At 18 meter nationals last summer (due to the nature of the finishes and the lack of acceptable landing options surrounding the airfield) the MFH was moved up mid contest. There was luke warm debate although the CD managed the discussion very eloquently. Ultimately, a vote was taken and the result was in favor of raising the MFH. I think it was moved from 700 to 800 AGL. It might have been higher. I do not remember. 1200 ft, is only 400 above 18m Nationals last summer. Clearly, it offers a greater cushion should the unthinkable happen and someone spins... Of course, the other alternative is simply to remove this rule altogether and just allow the pilots to make their own choices. It is a quite a pickle... Personally, I am open to both options. What I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location. Sean F2 On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:18:32 AM UTC-5, Andrew Brayer wrote: > Could we please just raise the finish height to 2000 feet and get it over with? i'll just do contest style finishes when i'm not at contests. > > > > having made my sarcastic remark, I do appreciate the efforts to make this sport safer. the problem is you cannot prevent accidents universally, this is aviation and racing combined. Instead we need to encourage pilots to make safe decisions rather than trying to protect everyone by implementing rules. > > > > my two cents.

I've flown a few contests, something more than 30, since the finish cylinder, in various forms, has been in place. I have never seen anyone trying to circle up to finish height. Obviously there may be a few cases where this happens. My view is that it makes little sense to try to solve issues that occur quite rarely.
Other considerations should include the likely actions after finishing. When one finishes at about 700 feet, the height is about right to enter the pattern and we can expect most pilots to do so pretty mich immediately. We then know where to expect the other traffic to be and recovery is usually orderly.
Raise the height by several hundred feet and now everyone will need to work out a path to get down to pattern height. This introduces another factor we all have to cope with as different pilots do their own way of letting down and entering the pattern.
With the commonly used 700 foot finish, I almost always position myself when finishing so I can directly enter the pattern and land. I note that most others do the same thing. I think it works pretty well.
Also worth noting is that tactically it almost never makes sense to try to circle up to try to reduce the penalty for finishing a bit below the finish height. At about 5 pts/ minute in Nationals(8/minute in regioals),the time used pretty quickly offsets the 40 points lost for a 200 foot low arrival..
UH

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:35:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:48:44 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > 2000 ft is a little high ;-), but (based on the discussion within this thread) we definitely need to consider moving MFH and any hard deck up to just above a mutually agreed "safe circling altitude." This minimum acceptable safe circling altitude is the key. I think we all agree that any finish height rule is absolutely going to cause a certain subset of pilots to instinctively try and save their points just outside the distance barrier and just below the penalty altitude. 1200 feet AGL is probably the right MFH (with graduated penalties down to 1000 AGL) as a stall spin is PROBABLY recoverable from 800 - 900 feet in most gliders. This is where the gliders "caught" by this rule will be "doing their dance!" At 18 meter nationals last summer (due to the nature of the finishes and the lack of acceptable landing options surrounding the airfield) the MFH was moved up mid contest. There was luke warm debate although the CD managed the discussion very eloquently. Ultimately, a vote was taken and the result was in favor of raising the MFH.. I think it was moved from 700 to 800 AGL. It might have been higher. I do not remember. 1200 ft, is only 400 above 18m Nationals last summer. Clearly, it offers a greater cushion should the unthinkable happen and someone spins... Of course, the other alternative is simply to remove this rule altogether and just allow the pilots to make their own choices. It is a quite a pickle... Personally, I am open to both options. What I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location. Sean F2 On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:18:32 AM UTC-5, Andrew Brayer wrote: > Could we please just raise the finish height to 2000 feet and get it over with? i'll just do contest style finishes when i'm not at contests. > > > > having made my sarcastic remark, I do appreciate the efforts to make this sport safer. the problem is you cannot prevent accidents universally, this is aviation and racing combined. Instead we need to encourage pilots to make safe decisions rather than trying to protect everyone by implementing rules. > > > > my two cents.
>
>
>
> I've flown a few contests, something more than 30, since the finish cylinder, in various forms, has been in place. I have never seen anyone trying to circle up to finish height. Obviously there may be a few cases where this happens. My view is that it makes little sense to try to solve issues that occur quite rarely.
>
> Other considerations should include the likely actions after finishing. When one finishes at about 700 feet, the height is about right to enter the pattern and we can expect most pilots to do so pretty mich immediately. We then know where to expect the other traffic to be and recovery is usually orderly.
>
> Raise the height by several hundred feet and now everyone will need to work out a path to get down to pattern height. This introduces another factor we all have to cope with as different pilots do their own way of letting down and entering the pattern.
>
> With the commonly used 700 foot finish, I almost always position myself when finishing so I can directly enter the pattern and land. I note that most others do the same thing. I think it works pretty well.
>
> Also worth noting is that tactically it almost never makes sense to try to circle up to try to reduce the penalty for finishing a bit below the finish height. At about 5 pts/ minute in Nationals(8/minute in regioals),the time used pretty quickly offsets the 40 points lost for a 200 foot low arrival.
>
> UH

I am with UH on this(very rarely he will add!). But the 2 rules(below)cover almost all these discussed issues.(same for Regionals & Nationals).

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 (Rule 12.2.5.1).

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.

#711

[Tim Taylor]

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
>
> > How about this
>
> >
>
> > 1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.
>
> >
>
> > You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.
>
> >
>
> > This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.
>
>
>
> Hi Tim,
>
>
>
> Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like.. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.
>
>
>
> Andy

Andy,

You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.

Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.

If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.

Tim

[Andrew Brayer]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > How about this
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hi Tim,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Andy
>
>
>
> Andy,
>
>
>
> You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.
>
>
>
> Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.
>
>
>
> If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.
>
>
>
> Tim

agreed, and I agree with what hank said about it getting complicated with people getting set up to do their pattern after arriving at something above pattern altitude.

I personally like the idea of a line still, with the possibility of a rolling finish. i think in principle, you can make it onto the field in a safe manner even if you don't necessarily have enough to make a *full* pattern, but it's like the rolling stones say about getting what you want...

I do think it's egregious that you could be "landed out" even if you make it onto the field in a safe manner.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/22/2014 2:45 PM, Andrew Brayer wrote:
> I personally like the idea of a line still, with the possibility of a rolling finish. i think in principle, you can make it onto the field in a safe manner even if you don't necessarily have enough to make a*full* pattern, but it's like the rolling stones say about getting what you want...


I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year. In
my opinion it is the safest option available. Even on a MAT or a Turn
Area Task, all you have to do is set up a mandatory 1 mile steering turn
point (same for all classes) and you're set...

Luke

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:55:32 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year.
> In my opinion it is the safest option available...

Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
close to the airport?

See race day 7:
http://www.nadler.com/public/2013_Hobbs/2013_Hobbs.html

Some of us will make sure to have safe options,
but not all, and it cannot be legislated to cover
all conditions anyway...

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/22/2014 3:31 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
> Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
> the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
> close to the airport?

The pilot would have blown his final glide regardless unless you are
implying that a 500 foot cylinder 1 mile away from the airport would
have magically improves a gliders L/D... It doesn't matter whether we
are aiming for a point 50 feet AGL at the airport, 500 at 1 mile or 1200
at 4 miles we still have to calculate a proper final glide. I much
rather be aiming at the airport that I can see than some fictional point
in 3d space...

Luke

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:28:02 AM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

>A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.

Your proposal does mean that a pilot at, say 300' and 3 miles has 175 points to gain (depending on ground effect and length of the runway) for pressing on to try to cross the cylinder at 0-50' and making a straight in versus landing in a field while some sort of orderly approach and landing is possible. Read the 1-26 nationals report from last year for a description of how it works.

To be clear - there are a number of pilots who argue that finishing below pattern height should earn a heavy penalty, up to a zero for the day, because they create a hazard not just for themselves but for others when they do things like cut other gliders off in the pattern. Yes, there have been multiple complaints on this issue this year. Maybe that falls under the unsafe flying rule - but CDs don't generally want to be in that position - they argue for a firm definition of what's too low.

And there we are.

[[email protected]]

> Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task.

Tim:

You're missing a basic point. When a finish cylinder is in effect, the task ends at the top of the finish cylinder, not at the home airport. "Making it home" does not mean "completing the task."

If you take off at the home airport and miss the start cylinder or start time, you do not get credit for completing the task, even though you took off at the same airport as everyone else and went around the same turnpoints. You may "feel" you should get credit, but you don't.

That's like saying you want credit for finishing a running race because, though you didn't go through the finish line with everyone else, you did make it to the locker room after the race.

Pilots may "feel" this way. I'm sure some pilots "felt" this way when rules were changed that you could not use your takeoff time rather than start time if you missed the gate. Sorry. The race is from start cylinder after start gate opens, through turnpoint cylinders, and to the finish cylinder. The start and finish cylinders have a maximum and minimum altitudes. That's the task, and where you land is pretty irrelevant to having completed the task.

Other pilots may "feel" that if they stopped in a half not rag to make it home at the finish height, it's unfair that some guy willing to bust his glider over the oil derrecks can still get speed points for floating in and pulling up over the fence.

Remember, all points are relative! To every pilot who gets ahead by squeaking in a low final glide for speed points, it is just the same as taking away points from the guys who don't do this stuff. If you're a competitive but also safety minded pilot, don't think about these structures as "how will they take points away from me." Think about it as "how will they keep some other guy from beating me by doing stupid stuff."

John Cochrane

[Dave Nadler]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:56:06 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
> ...It doesn't matter whether we
> are aiming for a point 50 feet AGL at the airport, 500 at 1 mile...

For those of us flying gliders who don't lose 450 feet/mile,
it makes a large difference ;-)

[[email protected]]

>
> I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year. In
> my opinion it is the safest option available.
>
> Luke

The danger of inference from one data point. Click. Well, Russian Roulette must be safe.

As Dave said, one of our most safety minded pilots landed on a city street two miles out. A lot of the rest of us had no fun at all on a long wave suppressed liftless final glide -- and the huge incentive to squeak it in on the last day of a national. Take a look down sometime while you glide in to Hobbs at Mc 0 + 50 feet, and remember the crashes that have happened there.

John Cochrane

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/22/2014 4:08 PM, wrote:
> The danger of inference from one data point. Click. Well, Russian Roulette must be safe.

You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I
normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.

Cheers,
Luke

[[email protected]]

> You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I
> normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Luke

It's a world of difference flying back to your own airport for fun vs. last day of nationals, lots of wind, no lift, you're in third place, you started at Mc 3 + 1000' but lost it all, and now you need to cross the oil derricks with MacCready 0 and 100 feet on the clock. The sirens will sing.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > How about this
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Hi Tim,
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Andy
>
>
>
> Andy,
>
>
>
> You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.
>
>
>
> Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.
>
>
>
> If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.
>
>
>
> Tim

+1

[Craig Funston[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:55:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I
>
> > normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> > Luke
>
>
>
> It's a world of difference flying back to your own airport for fun vs. last day of nationals, lots of wind, no lift, you're in third place, you started at Mc 3 + 1000' but lost it all, and now you need to cross the oil derricks with MacCready 0 and 100 feet on the clock. The sirens will sing.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

John, sounds like an intense final glide. It also sounds like the pain was pretty evenly distributed among the contestants and brings up an interesting thought regarding the MFH cylinder discussion. Do you have an opinion (or calculated results) as to how a MFH cylinder might have influenced the results of that day?

The current rules allow the CD to set the MFH based on the site, so it appears to me that the flexibility is there to address many of the concerns expressed here without any rule changes.

Thanks,
Craig

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 4:55:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I
>
> > normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> > Luke
>
>
>
> It's a world of difference flying back to your own airport for fun vs. last day of nationals, lots of wind, no lift, you're in third place, you started at Mc 3 + 1000' but lost it all, and now you need to cross the oil derricks with MacCready 0 and 100 feet on the clock. The sirens will sing.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

John, I don't think any reasonable person would continue faced with such adverse conditions. You are bringing an extreme example.

What about the same situation but a bit modified. A pilot had 1000 feet of safety and he lost it all arriving at the airport at 495 feet. Doesn't it feel silly to score him as a land out?

Should he instead land a mile earlier at a field? In your view it is not safe for him to continue? Such decision makes no sense. Obviously coming at 495 feet to the airport is much safer then landing in a field (most of the time).

You can't look at everything through extreme examples.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 4:55:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I
>
> > normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.
>
> >
>
> > Cheers,
>
> >
>
> > Luke
>
>
>
> It's a world of difference flying back to your own airport for fun vs. last day of nationals, lots of wind, no lift, you're in third place, you started at Mc 3 + 1000' but lost it all, and now you need to cross the oil derricks with MacCready 0 and 100 feet on the clock. The sirens will sing.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

John, we obviously approach flying differently, hence our divergent points of view. Every time I fly I strive to do my very best, whether in a contest, record attempt, or a personal best. I have yet to take a risk in a contest that I am not willing to take in my regular flying, I hope to maintain that level of self discipline for the remainder of my gliding career. One thing I know for sure; I will not do something stupid just because a rule does or does not exist, when I do make a mistake it will be my own poor judgement that got me there.

Happy soaring.
Luke

[[email protected]]

Mmmm....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOL-oH7oC8c

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/22/2014 6:21 PM, wrote:
> Mmmm....
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOL-oH7oC8c
>

Thanks Sean, very constructive, hope you're enjoying the show.... ;)

[Tim Taylor]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:04:27 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> > Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task.
>
>
>
> Tim:
>
>
>
> You're missing a basic point. When a finish cylinder is in effect, the task ends at the top of the finish cylinder, not at the home airport. "Making it home" does not mean "completing the task."
>
>
>
> If you take off at the home airport and miss the start cylinder or start time, you do not get credit for completing the task, even though you took off at the same airport as everyone else and went around the same turnpoints.. You may "feel" you should get credit, but you don't.
>
>
>
> That's like saying you want credit for finishing a running race because, though you didn't go through the finish line with everyone else, you did make it to the locker room after the race.
>
>
>
> Pilots may "feel" this way. I'm sure some pilots "felt" this way when rules were changed that you could not use your takeoff time rather than start time if you missed the gate. Sorry. The race is from start cylinder after start gate opens, through turnpoint cylinders, and to the finish cylinder. The start and finish cylinders have a maximum and minimum altitudes. That's the task, and where you land is pretty irrelevant to having completed the task.
>
>
>
> Other pilots may "feel" that if they stopped in a half not rag to make it home at the finish height, it's unfair that some guy willing to bust his glider over the oil derrecks can still get speed points for floating in and pulling up over the fence.
>
>
>
> Remember, all points are relative! To every pilot who gets ahead by squeaking in a low final glide for speed points, it is just the same as taking away points from the guys who don't do this stuff. If you're a competitive but also safety minded pilot, don't think about these structures as "how will they take points away from me." Think about it as "how will they keep some other guy from beating me by doing stupid stuff."
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

Actually John I do see the point, that is why I proposed a very simple solution that tries to deal with the perceived fairness issues of racing so that our rules are not too extreme.

We allow:

1. Missed start height or time below by using a penalty
2. Missed turn points with a penalty
3. Missed finish height with penalty

All of these could be removed and make it black or white, zero points for all errors. Does that encourage pilots to race? No we will just see more pack up early or not come at all.

Why?

Because a pure black and white system would be very discouraging to pilots for simple mistakes. We are all in this for the chicks or guys, and the money right?

Is anyone going to miss the finish gate on purpose? Absolutely not! Am I going to risk my glider and life for a few hundred points? No! I carry an extra 500 feet (or equivalent energy) if possible and burn it in the last few miles. It is not about someone willing to risk more than the others to win, anyone that flies like that will not win over a full contest. The price of error or risk/reward ratio is too high. Those are the hero or zero pilots that many of see at contests. Contest flying is about calculated risk and optimization, not risky flying.

The rules need to be as "simple as possible, but not simpler". All the convoluted scenarios you are trying to prevent is no longer simple and are not needed. You can not prevent all pilot error with a rule and there is no reason to. The 500 foot finish with a gradated penalty is enough. At roughly 5 points per minute I am not going to trade 45 minutes to come home with nothing left. But as others have said, is a simple mistake worth the penalties you are using to legislate your version of the perfect world?

The point that you don't seem to understand is most pilots see it as fair that if they get home they should get credit for finishing the task. This is purely a perception issue and why the new rules draw such a negative response from most pilots. It was clear at 15M/Open Nats that the rule was not popular among the pilots there.

TT

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:37:24 AM UTC-8, Bravo Zulu wrote:

John - Interlinear comments. My personal views - not in any official capacity.

> In response to 9B:
>
> The original post that started this discussion provided some data indicating that the current rule is not working as well as hoped in certain situations, and made some suggestions that might improve it.
>
> As to the hard deck idea, I do not understand how that will affect a pilot who is faced with a >deteriorating final glide that places him near the land-out penalty altitude just outside the finish >circle. He will have been above any proposed hard deck all the way. A pilot who is watching the final >glide knows early on that he might not make the MFH and is looking for lift all the way. The crunch >comes in the last mile or so when he has not found it and is now looking to avoid a big penalty, as >described (with concrete examples) in the original post.
>

The finish is a new use of the hard deck concept and makes a slightly different set of tradeoffs from the current rule. I'll try to articulate some preliminary thoughts on it, but it probably bears some detailed analysis.

First - in contrast to the current rule a hard deck would define the bottom of the finish cylinder in reference to the ground instead of 200' below MFH. Below the bottom of the cylinder means you didn't finish the task and you get distance points. For a 1000' MFH and a 500' hard deck this means the graduated "penalty zone" would be 500' instead of 200'. Points per foot of penalty TBD - choices are either to make it linear to 400 points (=landout) or something more like the current gradual penalty for <200, depending on whether having the penalty discontinuous at the bottom of the cylinder creates an incentive for risky behavior. I believe the second feature of the hard deck - a larger radius than the finish cylinder - decreases potential adverse incentives resulting from a discontinuous penalty at the bottom of the cylinder. More on that later.

Second - the hard deck as described here would extend out presumably 4-5 miles at an altitude below which a safe approach to an orderly landing starting at finish cylinder radius is not possible - This is consistent with the requirements of 10.9.4.1. In my thinking this hard deck height has been 400' to cover a variety of airport and finish cylinder configurations. Here it's been discussed at 500'. If finish cylinders were always 1 mile centered on an airport maybe you could MAYBE imagine 300' but I don't know who out there would make a serious argument that they could make a finish, fly to some sort of abbreviated pattern IP and make an orderly landing from 300' AGL..

Aside: Remember that GP-style starts will be allowed this year so you also have to think about being able to do this with a class of gliders finishing within a smaller time window than before. If we could be certain that every airport had a 1000' wide runway this would be less of a problem, but congestion is an issue at many sites. Somebody has to think about all this stuff...

I think the way a 4 mile (from the finish cylinder edge) hard deck might help is that it makes it a lot less likely that someone is going to come at a steep penalty zone all at once from the side. The so-called "penalty cliff" that started this thread has effectively been moved out to a point where most pilots will overfly the edge by 1000-1500', depending on MFH. If you were actually at 400', 4 miles out you would not be on final glide, you'd be on task (barely) and you be doing what pilots do when they are at 400' AGL on task, picking a field and (maybe) hoping for a climb.

So I think it's pretty clear that anyone coming at the hard deck would be coming at it from above, probably at best L/D because their glide computer has been telling them for some time that they are going to be WELL below MFH at the finish so they are stretching the glide. Once they are over the hard deck but not on a glidepath to get to the bottom of the finish cylinder, the correct and natural thing to do is head for the finish at best L/D and hope for lift. There's no energy to do a zoomie at the edge of the finish cylinder because you are trying to glide to it over a flat hard deck at best L/D. Pulling up to hit the bottom of the cylinder also means you already went below the hard deck and your day is done so that would be dumb. Would someone go halfway into the hard deck and then turn around so they could look for lift at below 400' outside of 4 miles? That would be stupid too as you probably close off more options than you open up by heading away from the finish. Would you bleed off airspeed trying to get a little more glide to reach the finish - maybe, but it would be counter-productive to go to the back side of the polar. So, maybe people would do stupid random stuff, but not for any rational reason that I can find.

>
> The original post suggested increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’, thereby reducing the per >foot penalty and providing more incentive to continue to a safe landing. In light of the excellent >explanation from 9B about the RC’s deliberations leading to the current rule, I would appreciate his >opinion as to how increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’ (with a commensurate increase in >the MFH) would effect the pilot’s decision in the case of a degrading final glide where the pilot can >still make the field safety but is facing a land-out finish penalty. It would seem to me that >decreasing the penalty for a low (but safely above the bottom of the PZ) entry would increase the >motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than stopping to thermal at an unsafe altitude. >Imagine a pilot facing a small penalty for a busted glide vs the same pilot facing a huge penalty; >which has the stronger motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than attempting a 'hail Mary' >play?

The good thing about the hard deck idea is it takes the edge off the bottom of the finish cylinder by making it impossible to climb up or zoom up to a finish in order to avoid the landout penalty. That's good to the extent you believe the steeper the penalty the more unpredictable the behavior to avoid it. The other think it does is pin the hard deck/landout height to the ground rather than the top of the finish cylinder. This means that the higher you make MFH the more buffer you have between MFH and the hard deck. Without the zoomie/low thermalling potential at the bottom of the cylinder you can be more comfortable with a gradual penalty from MFH to the bottom of the finish cylinder. (BTW I agree with UH this is probably a rare event, but something you'd prefer not to encourage).

The fly in the ointment is that some sites really like the 700' or 500' finish (I think for ridge missions), so you need to be careful about setting MFH too low, but with a 400' hard deck a 700' MFH has 300' of gradual penalty zone and a 1000' MFH has 600' of gradual penalty zone. A 500' MFH (drum roll for the math) has only 100' of gradual penalty, but I only hear a few voices who think that's a preferred target height for finishing a fleet of gliders and you still have 100' of buffer. Again with GP-style racing an option, we should be a little careful about how much congestion we can handle.

>
> I still suggest that we increase the width of the penalty zone as above for the 2014 season. This >would be a trivial change to implement, and has the virtue that its effects can be easily measured and >compared to prior-year data.

Actually I think there is scoring software programming for some of this and we are past the comment deadline for 2014 rules so this may have to go on the agenda for 2015 if there is broad support to consider it. This thread was initially promising, but I have also heard some voices against it so it remains to be seen what will happen. The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.

9B

[Tim Taylor]

"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.

9B"

Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.

TT




" The current rules for finish cylinders specify t
hat for the first 200 feet
below the minimum finish
height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of
20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet
below MFH, the pilot is
scored as if he landed out at the home ai
rport. The intent is to make it
transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont
inuing a marginal final glide.
However, it moves the end of the race for speed
points from landing at the airport to crossing a
point at MFH-200'.
Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish
cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):

A:
The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below
the finish height should be the same as the
penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.

B:
The penalty for crossing the finish
cylinder below the finish height
should be more severe than for
a high start, since safety as well
as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.

C:
Scoring for crossing the finish
cylinder below the fini
sh height should be the same as coming up
short on a line finish - if you come up short
you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for
instrument error)"

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:08:32 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
> "The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.
>
>
>
> 9B"
>
>
>
> Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.
>
>
>
> TT
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> " The current rules for finish cylinders specify t
>
> hat for the first 200 feet
>
> below the minimum finish
>
> height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of
>
> 20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet
>
> below MFH, the pilot is
>
> scored as if he landed out at the home ai
>
> rport. The intent is to make it
>
> transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont
>
> inuing a marginal final glide.
>
> However, it moves the end of the race for speed
>
> points from landing at the airport to crossing a
>
> point at MFH-200'.
>
> Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish
>
> cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):
>
>
>
> A:
>
> The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below
>
> the finish height should be the same as the
>
> penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.
>
>
>
> B:
>
> The penalty for crossing the finish
>
> cylinder below the finish height
>
> should be more severe than for
>
> a high start, since safety as well
>
> as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.
>
>
>
> C:
>
> Scoring for crossing the finish
>
> cylinder below the fini
>
> sh height should be the same as coming up
>
> short on a line finish - if you come up short
>
> you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for
>
> instrument error)"


Hey Tim,

A few pilots do review the survey before it goes out. I'm sure there is room for improvement. I also thought the results were pretty clear. No, there was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues - it was intended to survey views on paths forward and overall objectives rather than a vote on a specific penalty structure which had plenty of detailed feedback provided already. The very specific structure of a rule is not practical to survey for in multiple-choice format. Verbatims help as do focus-group format discussions.

9B

[Luke Szczepaniak]

-snip from Dave-

> Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
>
> the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
>
> close to the airport?
>

-snip from John -
>
> As Dave said, one of our most safety minded pilots landed on a city street two miles out. A lot of the rest of us had no fun at all on a long wave suppressed liftless final glide -- and the huge incentive to squeak it in on the last day of a national.
>
>



I had to check the score sheet just to make sure I was there.

Link to score sheet on the ssa website http://www.ssa.org/ContestResults.asp?contestId=2223&ContestDetailId=7710&ContestName=2013+15+Meter%2FOpen+Class+Nationals.

The top finisher in my class (15m) on the day did 79.4mph (~128kph), I was 8th with 75.18mph (~121kph). I was first to leave on task at 13:56 the last start time of a pilot who finished the task was at 14:54, he flew on task for almost 4 hours and finished with a speed of 63.57 mph (~102kph) - 15th on the day. Perhaps the day wasn't as bleak as you gentleman seem to remember. Yes, the day had it's challenges, but isn't that why we do this?

-snip from John-
>Take a look down sometime while you glide in to Hobbs at Mc 0 + 50 feet,

No thanks, I'll try very hard not to put myself in that position again. I've had a few marginal MC 0 final glides before. I am not proud of them, each one means that I screwed up somewhere earlier in the flight, to add insult to injury I then demonstrated poor judgment by continuing on to the finish. These were not contest flights, there were no points on the table, no outside pressure, just pure stupidity on my part. I sincerely hope that the lessons have sunk in to my thick concrete skull by now.


Perhaps slightly off topic but:
-snip from John
>-- huge incentive to squeak it in on the last day of a national.
>

Do you mean to imply that some pilots knew on July 3rd that July 4th would be called off due to logistical issues on the ground not directly related to the contest itself? To my knowledge all of the contestants thought that July 4th would be a contest day until the pilots meeting. Personally I was rigged, taped, watered up, and and on the grid before the meeting.


Cheers,
Luke Szczepaniak

[Tim Taylor]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:26:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:08:32 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
>
> > "The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 9B"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > TT
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > " The current rules for finish cylinders specify t
>
> >
>
> > hat for the first 200 feet
>
> >
>
> > below the minimum finish
>
> >
>
> > height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of
>
> >
>
> > 20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet
>
> >
>
> > below MFH, the pilot is
>
> >
>
> > scored as if he landed out at the home ai
>
> >
>
> > rport. The intent is to make it
>
> >
>
> > transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont
>
> >
>
> > inuing a marginal final glide.
>
> >
>
> > However, it moves the end of the race for speed
>
> >
>
> > points from landing at the airport to crossing a
>
> >
>
> > point at MFH-200'.
>
> >
>
> > Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish
>
> >
>
> > cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > A:
>
> >
>
> > The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below
>
> >
>
> > the finish height should be the same as the
>
> >
>
> > penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > B:
>
> >
>
> > The penalty for crossing the finish
>
> >
>
> > cylinder below the finish height
>
> >
>
> > should be more severe than for
>
> >
>
> > a high start, since safety as well
>
> >
>
> > as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > C:
>
> >
>
> > Scoring for crossing the finish
>
> >
>
> > cylinder below the fini
>
> >
>
> > sh height should be the same as coming up
>
> >
>
> > short on a line finish - if you come up short
>
> >
>
> > you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for
>
> >
>
> > instrument error)"
>
>
>
>
>
> Hey Tim,
>
>
>
> A few pilots do review the survey before it goes out. I'm sure there is room for improvement. I also thought the results were pretty clear. No, there was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues - it was intended to survey views on paths forward and overall objectives rather than a vote on a specific penalty structure which had plenty of detailed feedback provided already. The very specific structure of a rule is not practical to survey for in multiple-choice format. Verbatims help as do focus-group format discussions.
>
>
>
> 9B

After reviewing the data the result's were very clear.

73% (168 out of 231) of the pilots voted that they wanted the points to go all the way to the ground. That is nearly 3/4 of the pilots said they DID NOT want a hard deck or any type of land out penalty imposed on those that crossed the finish line.

Rules committee please explain why we did not immediately reverse the land out rule on finishes when you saw these results? How much clearer do you need the data to be to react and rectify a rule that was not liked by 3 out of 4 pilots?

Tim Taylor

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

> Rules committee please explain why we did not immediately reverse the land out rule on finishes when you saw these results? How much clearer do you need the data to be to react and rectify a rule that was not liked by 3 out of 4 pilots?
>
> Tim Taylor


Here's the explanation - my personal interpretation.

The survey included a question on the overall rule approach to get pilots' view of relative proportionality versus other penalties.

The least severe option as applied to a 1000' finish cylinder (which in my experience is the mode MSH currently in use) would invoke a penalty such that a rolling finish would get distance points. This is slightly more severe than your option - 0.5 points per foot (less a 100' buffer). It is more severe than the current rule for the first few hundred feet (I'd need to model it to get the crossover), less severe for middle altitudes and about the same for a rolling finish. We saw it as less severe overall.

The middle choice called for a more severe penalty than the start penalty - it did not specify how much more. Let's say 0.75 to 1.0 points per foot. For a 1,000' gate this would be 675-900 point penalty for a rolling finish. This was viewed as about the same as current option, since there are several hundred feet in the middle where the points penalties are close and we didn't assume pilots took it that the rules would ever penalize to a total score less than distance points.

The most severe option was a landout for being lower than MFH (allowing for altimeter error). This was viewed as more severe than the current option - mandatory landout for missing MFH.

So the summary was 1/4 for less severe, 1/2 for about the same and 1/4 for more severe. It wasn't just the survey that was used as input, there was a lot of discussion of the SRA meeting feedback. The overall conclusion was not to tweak the rules every year - especially on a change that was only in force for a year. The RC minutes reflect this.

I think it's fair to say this is continues to be an area of focus.

9B

[[email protected]]

> 1. Missed start height or time below by using a penalty
> 2. Missed turn points with a penalty
> 3. Missed finish height with penalty
>
> All of these could be removed and make it black or white, zero points for all errors. Does that encourage pilots to race? No we will just see more pack up early or not come at all.
>


A minor point here, especially to those of you who think the US should use IGC rules.

IGC rules give none of these graduated penalties. 1 meter out of the start gate? Tough, look harder next time. Miss a turnpoint by a meter? Tough again, you just landed. Airspace: real simple. One fix in, you landed. One fix a meter away, you're ok. None of this major penalty minor penalty stuff. Oh, and you can overfly airspace, just stay one meter above. Top is 17,999.99 not 17,500.

Participation isn't great everywhere, but not drastically worse than in the US. There is no international clamor to bring the US 10 pages of graduated penalty rules into IGC competition.

The idea that we need carefully structured graduated penalties so every pilot can nick every checkpoint with a foot to spare and all shall come home and all shall have prizes, or else people will stay away from contests in droves, just doesn't bear out in the facts. Most new pilots are completely unaware of these rules anyway. Actually, as we have seen, most experienced pilots are pretty foggy on the complex penalty structure too! Quick quiz: Just how many points per foot do you lose if you miss a turnpoint?

I will admit, one meter above the airport fence and you get speed points, you're ok, even if there is a truck in the way, and that too has limited effects on participation. Safety is only loosely related to participation, especially where, as in most responses to this thread, the vast majority of pilots can tell themselves that only bozos would do this stuff and they're immune. But there are reasons other than participation for rules not to dangle hundreds of points in front of pilots for doing stupid stuff.

John Cochrane

[Dan Marotta]

All this talk of "safety" and you post a picture you took of your
speedometer while driving at 72 MPH? And probably on a two lane road.
Sheesh...


"Dave Nadler" > wrote in message
...
> On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:55:32 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
>> I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year.
>> In my opinion it is the safest option available...
>
> Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
> the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
> close to the airport?
>
> See race day 7:
> http://www.nadler.com/public/2013_Hobbs/2013_Hobbs.html
>
> Some of us will make sure to have safe options,
> but not all, and it cannot be legislated to cover
> all conditions anyway...

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:12:42 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
> All this talk of "safety" and you post a picture you took of your speedometer while driving at 72 MPH? And probably on a two lane road. Sheesh...

Yeah. That is way too slow, Dave. I have taken pictures of the speedo at upwards of 100 MPH on two lane roads. Step it up, will ya?

Actually, Dan. Dave's picture was of the odometer. Just happens you also get to see the speedometer. :-)

Steve

[[email protected]]

If a 700ft finish is too low for a 18 meter national contest, then it is probably too low for a Regional. Yes, I understand the caveat of diving off a ridge and would not have a problem with that.

Last year at Perry and at Cordele, I was racing my Silent-IN, the 12 meter, 31/1 L/D.

We had 700 foot finishes at both sites. I understand this is comfortable for a modern 15 or 18 meter ship and leaves plenty of margin.

This does not leave much if any margin for me, and found that I needed to take extra height to be safe.

I am racing too, and this leaves us essentially racing to a different finish points. You are racing to a finish height that gives you an adequate safety margin and I am racing to the same point, but having to take more altitude for the same safety factor.

I understand UH's comment about immediately joining the pattern in an orderly fashion, but I think this could also be done with a 1000 foot finish and some more spoilers added.

This also gives a little more room is someone has a problem on landing and obstructs the runway.

Kevin
192

[[email protected]]

Good points Kevin.

On Friday, January 24, 2014 8:01:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> If a 700ft finish is too low for a 18 meter national contest, then it is probably too low for a Regional. Yes, I understand the caveat of diving off a ridge and would not have a problem with that.
>
>
>
> Last year at Perry and at Cordele, I was racing my Silent-IN, the 12 meter, 31/1 L/D.
>
>
>
> We had 700 foot finishes at both sites. I understand this is comfortable for a modern 15 or 18 meter ship and leaves plenty of margin.
>
>
>
> This does not leave much if any margin for me, and found that I needed to take extra height to be safe.
>
>
>
> I am racing too, and this leaves us essentially racing to a different finish points. You are racing to a finish height that gives you an adequate safety margin and I am racing to the same point, but having to take more altitude for the same safety factor.
>
>
>
> I understand UH's comment about immediately joining the pattern in an orderly fashion, but I think this could also be done with a 1000 foot finish and some more spoilers added.
>
>
>
> This also gives a little more room is someone has a problem on landing and obstructs the runway.
>
>
>
> Kevin
>
> 192

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 8:01:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> If a 700ft finish is too low for a 18 meter national contest, then it is probably too low for a Regional. Yes, I understand the caveat of diving off a ridge and would not have a problem with that. Last year at Perry and at Cordele, I was racing my Silent-IN, the 12 meter, 31/1 L/D. We had 700 foot finishes at both sites. I understand this is comfortable for a modern 15 or 18 meter ship and leaves plenty of margin. This does not leave much if any margin for me, and found that I needed to take extra height to be safe. I am racing too, and this leaves us essentially racing to a different finish points. You are racing to a finish height that gives you an adequate safety margin and I am racing to the same point, but having to take more altitude for the same safety factor. I understand UH's comment about immediately joining the pattern in an orderly fashion, but I think this could also be done with a 1000 foot finish and some more spoilers added. This also gives a little more room is someone has a problem on landing and obstructs the runway. Kevin 192

I Fly an ASK-21 that has similar performance in a couple contests each year.. If the finish position and the pattern are such that I think we will need a bit more margin, I add it in the last couple miles and get on with it. That is part of what handicapped racing is about.
Most finishes set at 700 feet result in a bit more altitude available because few fly the finish perfectlyand most have some excess energy.
In any case, if pilots at a race have a concern about the finish height, the CD has the option to adjust it. That said, at a big contest like Perry, adjusting the finish and complicating the pattern for 65 gliders to accomodate 1 or 2 makes not too much sense.
UH

[[email protected]]

> In any case, if pilots at a race have a concern about the finish height, the CD has the option to adjust it. That said, at a big contest like Perry, adjusting the finish and complicating the pattern for 65 gliders to accomodate 1 or 2 makes not too much sense.
>
> UH

Wise from UH. There is way too much asking the rules committee to impose from on high things that you can just talk to the CD about.

But..700 feet is really 500 feet, and 500 feet, 40 knots, and one mile from the south or north is really uncomfortable even in 15 meters at Perry. I also don't agree with Hank's idea that too much altitude leads to traffic problems. More energy always good. The CD can suggest an extended pattern if youse don't know what to do with yourselves for a few hundred feet. So if anyone wants to ask for 1000 feet at Perry, you'll have another voice to agree with it.

John Cochrane

[Andy Gough[_2_]]

First of all I would like to congratulate Sean for being able to pick the most controversial subjects to discuss on RAS. Just about every thread Sean starts or joins turns into a weeks long exchange that explores every possible nuance to the point of ad nauseam. If newcomers to the sport could be encouraged to the same degree we would see a boom in soaring participation.

But I digress my main observation is that twenty years ago before GPS to receive a good finish one had to arrive within the airfield boundaries with flying speed and it was necessary to complete a touchdown, roll out and stop without catastrophic incident. If you landed before the fence or executed an arrival rather than a landing, points for a successful finish were not awarded. The difference now is we are required to arrive above and within the horizontal boundaries of the top of an invisible cylinder. The cylinder itself is no different than a line of trees on the airfield boundary, enter it from anywhere other than above and you did not make the finish. Except of course we have graduated penalties, which change the whole safety objective, the main reason for going to a finish cylinder. Imagine if we had the same graduated penalties in the finish line scenario:
· hit the fence post but cause only superficial damage 20 points
· stall and groundloop just inside the airfield boundary, breaking off the tail boom 500 points
· but come to rest past the runway threshold 100 points
Well I hope you get the picture. Logically, if you don't complete the mission the way it is intended you don't deserve the points.

If safety is not the reason for adopting a finish cylinder then we might as well go back to the old finish line at least it was fun and it was simple to determine a valid finish. Both methods open the possibility to pull ups and thermalling low and close to the airport. Is this the behaviour we are trying to mitigate? Thermalling low down or aggressive pull ups can occur anywhere on task, this behaviour is not governed by proximity to the finish. However funnelling the fleet into a 1 mile radius cylinder at 500 ft may concentrate traffic to the point this behaviour can be detrimental to more than the individual performing these manoeuvres. We use a 5 mile cylinder for the start to provide separation should we not do the same at the finish. It could be argued that there is greater concentration at the start than the finish, but gaggling ensures a mass finish is not unusual. Finishing the race further out would necessitate a higher cylinder to allow the glider to cover the distance to the airport and extra height is needed to perform a circuit. The desired circuit arrival height can be used to determine the height at which the race ends at the circle boundary. Spectator value disappeared along with the finish line but if one is bent on thrilling the onlookers there is plenty more time and room to execute the move using the remote finish.

Contest site management already has the leeway to set a finish height. We have testimony that unless the finish is set high enough lower performance gliders entering the finish cylinder at the optimum height may encounter difficulty completing a satisfactory circuit and landing. Again if safety is the motivation then maybe we need to allow contest management the ability to set realistic safety parameters to suit the contest they are running. In a large contest at a restricted site a wider finish ring with height set high enough to ensure an orderly circuit for the given site and different finish heights to suit each class might alleviate safety concerns and given the more generous margins obviate the need for penalty points and the arguments they create. In short flexible finish height and an elastic cylinder radius may be the answer but despite all the risks I still prefer the old fashioned flying finish the most.

Andy Gough

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/24/2014 9:56 AM, wrote:
> But..700 feet is really 500 feet, and 500 feet, 40 knots, and one mile from the south or north is really uncomfortable even in 15 meters at Perry.

Why are you coming in at 40kts? Is it perhaps because you made a bad
decision earlier in the flight and didn't stop for a climb, or were
running to hot and realized it too late? If you know you will be
uncomfortable don't fly to the minimums........

Luke

[[email protected]]

> Why are you coming in at 40kts? Is it perhaps because you made a bad
> decision earlier in the flight and didn't stop for a climb, or were
> running to hot and realized it too late? If you know you will be
> uncomfortable don't fly to the minimums........
>
>
> Luke

Once again, real slow.

The problem with finishes does not occur when things work out as planned, and we bash home at 100 knots. Well, yes, actually, there were plenty of brain fade after finish problems, but that wasn't the real motivation for moving things up.

And yes, every sane pilot tanks up and doesn't set out across the woods separating himself from home until he has a decent energy reserve. Nobody plans to arrive at 500 feet and 40 knots.

But, welcome to soaring. Sometimes things don't work out as planned. 20 miles out, you had Mc 3 and 500 feet. But now it's 10 miles out, you found a lot of sink, and you're down to Mc 0 and 100 feet, about 2000' AGL. It looks like a few fields ahead. Keep going? Well, there are all those great stories of hero pilots who pulled up over the fence and made it.

And now, despite all your great planning, you're 5 miles out, Mc 0 + 100 feet. 750 feet AGL. You're doing great in the contest so far. Last field below. Trees ahead. Hero stories ringing in your ears. You know they'd do it -- they've said so a hundred times. This is how contests are won, no? Are you really going to stop, with 750 feet still remaining, while the computer says you can make it?

Maybe yes. I have known a lot of pilots who made the decision to throw away a nationals in this circumstance and land. I have. I know a lot of pilots who went for it, and made it, and were heroes. I know a few pilots who went for it and did not make it.

In any case, if you do it, you are going to fly at best glide -- 53 knots, and then end up stretching the glide over the cylinder by gently slowing down to 40 knots.

Recognize that this is a very tough decision. If you just say "I won't be tempted" you are in deep, deep denial, totally fooling yourself and ripe to make the wrong decision. Think very very hard about this little coffin corner before you get there, have a set of quantitative guidelines ready. Pilots who get this right do it by knowing they will be tempted and guarding against that.

To your point, it does not matter how good your earlier decisions are, how conservatively you start your final glide. This situation will come to you sooner or later. It came to me once after leaving the last thermal 1500 feet over Mc 3. I landed one mile out, in the last good field, with everyone watching. I had 300 feet at that last field, but it was nothing but houses and powerlines to the airport.

Now, once we're honest with ourselves and realize how tough this decision is, how tempting it will be to continue, and how much going for it is part of the racing tradition and important toolkit of contest-winning pilots who aim to win nationals and worlds... How about we move the whole affair up 500 feet?

John Cochrane

[RR]

snip...

>How about we move the whole affair up 500 feet?
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

Completely agree with moving it up 500 feet, in the old days, if you arrived 6 ft below the hard deck (the ground), you stayed there....

However having the 500ft floor only in the finish cylinder, with all the speed points at risk, does seem to incentivize low thermaling in an area that has high concentration of (perhaps) head down pilots. The pilot might even feel more comfortable trying to climb there due to the proximity of the airport.

Here is a suggestion, put the 500 ft hard deck out to 4 miles. Once you make your 4 mile call you are over a hard deck. You still need to come into the finish cylinder, everything remains the same, but once you fall under the 500 ft hard deck your done, join the landing traffic. If your final glide is marginal, and you think this is likely, you will want to stop and try to climb outside the hard deck, where the increased radius will help spread out the traffic.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 10:14:39 AM UTC-5, Andy Gough wrote:
> First of all I would like to congratulate Sean for being able to pick the most controversial subjects to discuss on RAS. Just about every thread Sean starts or joins turns into a weeks long exchange that explores every possible nuance to the point of ad nauseam. If newcomers to the sport could be encouraged to the same degree we would see a boom in soaring participation.
>
>
>
> But I digress my main observation is that twenty years ago before GPS to receive a good finish one had to arrive within the airfield boundaries with flying speed and it was necessary to complete a touchdown, roll out and stop without catastrophic incident. If you landed before the fence or executed an arrival rather than a landing, points for a successful finish were not awarded. The difference now is we are required to arrive above and within the horizontal boundaries of the top of an invisible cylinder. The cylinder itself is no different than a line of trees on the airfield boundary, enter it from anywhere other than above and you did not make the finish. Except of course we have graduated penalties, which change the whole safety objective, the main reason for going to a finish cylinder. Imagine if we had the same graduated penalties in the finish line scenario:
>
> · hit the fence post but cause only superficial damage 20 points
>
> · stall and groundloop just inside the airfield boundary, breaking off the tail boom 500 points
>
> · but come to rest past the runway threshold 100 points
>
> Well I hope you get the picture. Logically, if you don't complete the mission the way it is intended you don't deserve the points.
>
>
>
> If safety is not the reason for adopting a finish cylinder then we might as well go back to the old finish line at least it was fun and it was simple to determine a valid finish. Both methods open the possibility to pull ups and thermalling low and close to the airport. Is this the behaviour we are trying to mitigate? Thermalling low down or aggressive pull ups can occur anywhere on task, this behaviour is not governed by proximity to the finish. However funnelling the fleet into a 1 mile radius cylinder at 500 ft may concentrate traffic to the point this behaviour can be detrimental to more than the individual performing these manoeuvres. We use a 5 mile cylinder for the start to provide separation should we not do the same at the finish.. It could be argued that there is greater concentration at the start than the finish, but gaggling ensures a mass finish is not unusual. Finishing the race further out would necessitate a higher cylinder to allow the glider to cover the distance to the airport and extra height is needed to perform a circuit. The desired circuit arrival height can be used to determine the height at which the race ends at the circle boundary. Spectator value disappeared along with the finish line but if one is bent on thrilling the onlookers there is plenty more time and room to execute the move using the remote finish.
>
>
>
> Contest site management already has the leeway to set a finish height. We have testimony that unless the finish is set high enough lower performance gliders entering the finish cylinder at the optimum height may encounter difficulty completing a satisfactory circuit and landing. Again if safety is the motivation then maybe we need to allow contest management the ability to set realistic safety parameters to suit the contest they are running. In a large contest at a restricted site a wider finish ring with height set high enough to ensure an orderly circuit for the given site and different finish heights to suit each class might alleviate safety concerns and given the more generous margins obviate the need for penalty points and the arguments they create. In short flexible finish height and an elastic cylinder radius may be the answer but despite all the risks I still prefer the old fashioned flying finish the most.
>
>
>
> Andy Gough

You are correct Andy. Even a 700ft AGL minimum finish height is not enough for a low performing glider to execute a safe pattern. Coming back from the ridge at Mifflin, into the wind and a good bit of sink, I found that at 700ft 1 mile out, it would be just enough to do a base-final turn. It was not intentionally executed in this manner... just a function of getting accustomed to another ridge site and its arrival procedures from the ridge. At other contests, 500ft AGL puts low performing gliders into a straight-in final to the runway.

Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

[[email protected]]

The decision to thermal at 500ft AGL is the same at the finish sector, out on course or attempting to thermal out from a relight near the airport. It's irrelevant where this is taking place. If this is affecting finishing gliders, I suggest to move the finish up to 1000ft so that if there is really someone who is trying to thermal up at 500ft AGL, that there is enough separation that he does not affect the incoming traffic.

If you want a hard-deck 4 miles out to prevent pilots from electing bad judgement and thermalling low near the airport, then why is it okay to do so 5 miles from the finish? Or 50 miles from the finish to not land-out? I don't necessarily support the hard-deck nor am I opposed to it, but if you follow this sort of logic presented, that's a great reason to have a harddeck completely around the whole task area. The decision to thermal at 500ft is still the same decision, no matter where the pilot is.

Best Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

[Craig R.]

Or perhaps we just give the folks that are pushing for a rolling finish what they want and let Darwinism deal with them. Caveat; if you cut me off in the pattern, if I have to do evasive maneuvers to avoid you within the finish cylinder, if you jeopardize my safety in the pattern in any way, or if you jeopardize the safety of someone on the ground, then you are summarily tossed from the contest.....

[Craig R.]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 8:52:32 AM UTC-8, Craig R. wrote:
> Or perhaps we just give the folks that are pushing for a rolling finish what they want and let Darwinism deal with them. Caveat; if you cut me off in the pattern, if I have to do evasive maneuvers to avoid you within the finish cylinder, if you jeopardize my safety in the pattern in any way, or if you jeopardize the safety of someone on the ground, then you are summarily tossed from the contest.....


What everyone is blowing off is that the finish is NOT about YOU and having a thrill at the finish, but the safety of the other pilots and ground personnel that your actions impact. Let's keep our eye on that ball.

[[email protected]]

And lastly while I am on a roll, this graduated penalty stuff is really bizarre, especially with respect to turnpoints, followed by starts and finishes. I understand that 25 years ago that the GPS loggers were much less accurate and a one mile leeway for hitting the turnpoint may have been necessary.. Nowadays, the vast majority of pilots have displays on their logging systems which clearly show if they hit the turnpoint or not. Even the ancient Colibri that I have used as my IGC logger beeps when the turnpoint is touched. The one mile leeway we have is insane! To save two miles on hitting the turnpoint and taking a penalty is a very valuable tactical decision and rules should not affect tactical decisions in this way. Bottom line, I think this should be ended.

For starts, most people have stopwatches, or some other form of clock. Furthermore, no one has ever said that you must wait exactly two minutes and go.. Why shouldn't a pilot stay say 3 minutes as an added safety factor? It would be more beneficial to simplify the rules and make 2 minutes the defining factor.

With respect to starts and finishes, I think there should be 50ft of leeway given, but with 1 point per foot. A MINIMUM altitude is intended to be the floor or the ground. In the past, you could not finish under the ground. With 50ft of leeway given in starts/finishes, this could account for most instrument errors with a simple penalty system that does not require understanding a long formula.

Best Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

[RR]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:51:28 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> The decision to thermal at 500ft AGL is the same at the finish sector, out on course or attempting to thermal out from a relight near the airport.

snip...


Daniel, I had the same thought, but really I think there is a difference between having a hard deck out on course or having one just in the "prep for landing zone". I have been guilty of low save attempts, some successful, some not, some in contests, some not. But when I have attempted them, I was alone with each turn pointed at a final into an airport or field. Having someone try it near the finish cylinder is undesirable not for their own safety (well that too) but for the safety of others. Giving a 400 pt "bonus" for pulling it off, does not seem like the right thing to do. Extending the floor of the finish cylinder out some reasonable distance, would remove the incentive to save a "land out at the airport" near the airport. I would note that the suggestion of increasing the size of the finish cylinder accomplishes the same thing, but perhaps makes the pattern entry of the landing traffic less predictable.

RR

[Dan Marotta]

It was a low overcast, windy (25-35 G 50), cold frontal day and I was the
duty tow pilot and didn't get to fly. Guess I was just testy. Thanks for
the slap, Steve. :c)


"Steve Leonard" > wrote in message
...
> On Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:12:42 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
>> All this talk of "safety" and you post a picture you took of your
>> speedometer while driving at 72 MPH? And probably on a two lane road.
>> Sheesh...
>
> Yeah. That is way too slow, Dave. I have taken pictures of the speedo at
> upwards of 100 MPH on two lane roads. Step it up, will ya?
>
> Actually, Dan. Dave's picture was of the odometer. Just happens you also
> get to see the speedometer. :-)
>
> Steve

[Eric Bick (1DB)]

>
> What everyone is blowing off is that the finish is NOT about YOU and having a thrill at the finish, but the safety of the other pilots and ground personnel that your actions impact. Let's keep our eye on that ball.

Wow. This whole thread is fascinating - I'm looking at flying my first competitions this season, and finding I'm in way over my head. My comments are a bit off the main thread, but relevant to me and perhaps others that aren't competition pros.

The idea of thermaling at 500' AGL or lower is beyond my comprehension at this point in my soaring career, and entering a landing pattern at 500' - 700' from a mile out contrary to all my student piloting lessons (even though I can calculate that it is readily doable in my glider).

The rules themselves seem straightforward, even though I have little idea of how they play out in a contest. And the start and finish cylinder concepts seem straightforward. All I'm really interested in for my first tries is finishing each day, flying safely, not doing anything stupid, leaving plenty of margin, scoring some points, and having a challenge and fun (i.e. wanting to do it again).

I expect as time goes on, flying more contests will lead to my learning and appreciating the strategies and tactics discussed in a lot of this thread - but my main concerns are whether the current rules are in fact safe for a neophyte to contests and a relatively low-timer. From the discussions, I'm not getting a clear sense of whether they are or not (specifically as related to the finish).

I understand we are all subject to sometimes making dumb decisions, or the weather making our plans (and margins) vanish - but the rules should basically enable safe flying in contests, even accounting to some degree the wide variance in risk different pilots are willing to take under varying circumstances. Reassure me that the rules do enable basically safe flying in contests. I have to assume they do since the fatality rate doesn't seem to be something that draws headline attention.

Eric Bick

[Tony[_5_]]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 12:52:06 PM UTC-6, Eric Bick (1DB) wrote:
> >
>
> > What everyone is blowing off is that the finish is NOT about YOU and having a thrill at the finish, but the safety of the other pilots and ground personnel that your actions impact. Let's keep our eye on that ball.
>
>
>
> Wow. This whole thread is fascinating - I'm looking at flying my first competitions this season, and finding I'm in way over my head. My comments are a bit off the main thread, but relevant to me and perhaps others that aren't competition pros.
>
>
>
> The idea of thermaling at 500' AGL or lower is beyond my comprehension at this point in my soaring career, and entering a landing pattern at 500' - 700' from a mile out contrary to all my student piloting lessons (even though I can calculate that it is readily doable in my glider).
>
>
>
> The rules themselves seem straightforward, even though I have little idea of how they play out in a contest. And the start and finish cylinder concepts seem straightforward. All I'm really interested in for my first tries is finishing each day, flying safely, not doing anything stupid, leaving plenty of margin, scoring some points, and having a challenge and fun (i.e. wanting to do it again).
>
>
>
> I expect as time goes on, flying more contests will lead to my learning and appreciating the strategies and tactics discussed in a lot of this thread - but my main concerns are whether the current rules are in fact safe for a neophyte to contests and a relatively low-timer. From the discussions, I'm not getting a clear sense of whether they are or not (specifically as related to the finish).
>
>
>
> I understand we are all subject to sometimes making dumb decisions, or the weather making our plans (and margins) vanish - but the rules should basically enable safe flying in contests, even accounting to some degree the wide variance in risk different pilots are willing to take under varying circumstances. Reassure me that the rules do enable basically safe flying in contests. I have to assume they do since the fatality rate doesn't seem to be something that draws headline attention.
>
>
>
> Eric Bick

Eric,

The minimum finish height is a minimum and there is no maximum. So there is no reason that the rules regarding the finish especially should force you into an unsafe position unless you choose to go there personally.

I have only flown 4 contests but I think I can count on 1 hand how many times i've finished anywhere close to the minimum. Usually my problem is just getting down. 3 of those four have been at sites without particularly inviting landable terrain near the airport (Llano, TX and Moriarty). I was at my first contest in Llano and didn't really know how to use the final glide stuff on my Oudie anyway and finished ridiculously high most days. At Moriarty I usually wouldn't set out on final glide unless I had a 1000 or 1500 foot pad over minimum to hopefully account for dynamic air on the final glide.. I can think of at least one time in Moriarty where that wasn't enough. At Llano I landed out one day after finding a nice river of sink on the final glide.

Your approach is smart and should lead to years of fun flying contests. I take a similar approach: don't do anything i wouldn't do in "normal" flying, bring the glider back in one piece, have fun, etc. and I have had a great time so far.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/24/2014 1:52 PM, Eric Bick (1DB) wrote:
> Reassure me that the rules do enable basically safe flying in contests.


In short, they do. Come fly a contest, use your best judgement as pilot
in command to be safe, learn a ton and have fun.

These winter discussions stem from differences in opinion. Some people
find it unacceptable that the rules don't prevent each and every pilot
from making mistakes, so they want to make a rule that covers every
single possibility, I on the other hand believe that the responsibility
lies with the guy behind the controls.

Luke Szczepaniak

[Mike I Green]

My finish height, fun, cross country, or contest is 1200'. Didn't win
a lot of contests but had a hell of a lot of fun.

MG
--
Mike I Green

[Luke Szczepaniak]

> Once again, real slow.


John,

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain things "real slow" to
me, the 2 brain cells I have left after beating my head against the wall
couldn't keep up with you before.

> Recognize that this is a very tough decision. If you just say "I won't be tempted" you are in deep, deep denial, totally fooling yourself and ripe to make the wrong decision. Think very very hard about this little coffin corner before you get there, have a set of quantitative guidelines ready. Pilots who get this right do it by knowing they will be tempted and guarding against that.

After unsuccessful attempts to explain, due to possible brain damage, I
will be more direct;
I realize that I will be tempted, I accept it as a part of soaring, I
welcome it as a test of personal constitution.

> But, welcome to soaring. Sometimes things don't work out as planned.

This is precisely what keeps me coming back. It isn't an experiment
under controlled laboratory conditions boiled down to a mathematical
formula. I fly on the good days, I fly on the bad days, each flight is a
totally different experience that feeds the dark lump of coal which
beats inside my chest.

> And now, despite all your great planning, you're 5 miles out, Mc 0 + 100 feet. 750 feet AGL. You're doing great in the contest so far. Last field below. Trees ahead. Hero stories ringing in your ears. You know they'd do it -- they've said so a hundred times. This is how contests are won, no? Are you really going to stop, with 750 feet still remaining, while the computer says you can make it?

Risk management is a big part of soaring, most racing pilots aren't dare
devils, they manage the risk according to any number of factors.
Gliding is much more than the MacCready theory and technique, it's not
just numbers on a spread sheet. Knowing how to control your emotions
and distinguishing impulse from intuition are a key part of the game.

> Maybe yes. I have known a lot of pilots who made the decision to throw away a nationals in this circumstance and land. I have. I know a lot of pilots who went for it, and made it, and were heroes. I know a few pilots who went for it and did not make it.


You are diluting the sport to statistics and probability. Being an
excellent pilot and a smart man you realize that, mathematically
speaking, one of the few ways for the other guy to beat you is by taking
a bigger risk. Based on your posts in this thread it appears to me that
you are trying to mitigate that possibility by changing the rules to
meet your own criteria and are using "safety" as a battling ram.

Last year one of my goals was to stop trying to beat the other guy and
just fly my own flight. As a result my enjoyment of contests has been
increased exponentially - highly recommended.

Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

> Some people find it unacceptable that the rules don't prevent each and
> every pilot from making mistakes, so they want to make a rule that covers every
> single possibility, I on the other hand believe that the responsibility
> lies with the guy behind the controls.
>
> Luke Szczepaniak

For about the 150th time, the finish rule (nor the RC philosophy behind it) does NOT attempt to "prevent pilots from making mistakes", "cover every single possibility" "legislate safety" or take any "responsibility" away from the PIC. The rules (and law) state explicitly that the PIC is responsible for all safety decisions.

The finish rule is designed to remove what was a strong temptation to unsafe behavior, and put decision making back in the pilots' hands. Before: 400 points if you can squeak over the quarry and clear the fence. Now: same points either way, you make the decision. Who is telling who what to do? Who is taking away responsibility?

I'm getting grumpy, because this calumny just keeps getting repeated over and over. And answered over and over.

John Cochrane

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 01/24/2014 3:56 PM, wrote:
> I'm getting grumpy, because this calumny just keeps getting repeated over and over. And answered over and over.

This will continue as long as we have a difference of opinion. It is
your prerogative to fly the task in a manner deemed safe by you, I
respect that. Do you respect the fact that 4/3 majority of contest
pilots in the poll disagree with the rule? Are we a statistical anomaly
to be thrown out, perhaps we are just dumb thrill seekers looking for a
quick way out? Maybe you can word the question better next year to get
a more favourable response.

Luke Szczepaniak

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 12:20:32 PM UTC-8, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:

> Risk management is a big part of soaring, most racing pilots aren't dare
> devils, they manage the risk according to any number of factors.
>
> You are diluting the sport to statistics and probability. Being an
> excellent pilot and a smart man you realize that, mathematically
> speaking, one of the few ways for the other guy to beat you is by taking
> a bigger risk.

> Luke Szczepaniak

Hi Luke.

Your comment(s) made me very curious. I'd like to understand the full range of views in the community.

Two questions for you:

Is your preferred configuration no penalty structure for finishing low? Having a minimum finish height is almost entirely a safety-motivated rule.

Second, would you prefer to remove the requirement that finisher land at the home airport in order to earn speed points? This would be the next safety-motivated rule in the finish sequence.

I'm trying to figure out if you prefer not to have safety-oriented rules as a matter of principle or a matter of degree.

Thanks,

9B

[Luke Szczepaniak]

I would personally prefer to have a minimum 50 foot flying line finish
at the airport with the possibility of a rolling finish as a safe
alternative. It is the pilots responsibility to conduct a safe finish.
If there is a real safety concern the pilot should be penalized
accordingly by the CD.

If the 1 mile circle is my only option the simple guy in me wants to say
that it should be a hard deck, if you can't cross the finish line above
MFH you didn't complete the task, 0 speed points. Having said that, I
see the other side of the coin, and am easily swayed towards a linear
reduction in points all the way to the ground. I do not like the
graduated penalty of some arbitrary number that will be shifted every year.

As a completely out side of the box proposition we could always use the
1000m IGC height loss rule. Keeps people lower in the start cylinder,
keeps people higher in the finish, as an added bonus it gets us back in
line with the record/badge world so there is a possibility of setting a
record in a contest.

The requirement to land at the airport is a personal favourite of mine,
I hope you are not edging me on :). In my opinion the rule as written
right now promotes unsafe behaviour. The pilot completes the task,
chooses the safer option to land out (who lands out when they don't have
to?), but we take away all the speed points? Makes no sense to me.

Thanks for keeping an open mind.
Luke Szczepaniak







On 01/24/2014 5:32 PM, wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2014 12:20:32 PM UTC-8, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
>
>> Risk management is a big part of soaring, most racing pilots aren't dare
>> devils, they manage the risk according to any number of factors.
>>
>> You are diluting the sport to statistics and probability. Being an
>> excellent pilot and a smart man you realize that, mathematically
>> speaking, one of the few ways for the other guy to beat you is by taking
>> a bigger risk.
>
>> Luke Szczepaniak
>
> Hi Luke.
>
> Your comment(s) made me very curious. I'd like to understand the full range of views in the community.
>
> Two questions for you:
>
> Is your preferred configuration no penalty structure for finishing low? Having a minimum finish height is almost entirely a safety-motivated rule.
>
> Second, would you prefer to remove the requirement that finisher land at the home airport in order to earn speed points? This would be the next safety-motivated rule in the finish sequence.
>
> I'm trying to figure out if you prefer not to have safety-oriented rules as a matter of principle or a matter of degree.
>
> Thanks,
>
> 9B
>

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 6:46:02 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?
>
>
>
> If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.
>
>
>
> To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.
>
>
>
> Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.
>
>
>
> However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.
>
>
>
> If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.
>
>
>
> Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.
>
>
>
> Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.
>
>
>
> Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.
>
>
>
> So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.
>
>
>
> Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”
>
>
>
> So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):
>
>
>
> • Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.
>
>
>
> • Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).
>
>
>
> • Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?
>
>
>
> Let the flame wars begin! ;-)



Ok, we should all agree, its best for the rules, if possible, to remain constant. A rolling finish is allowed with a "gate". With a rolling finish, the entrant still gets speed points. The cylinder does not allow a rolling finish, a penalty is applied only down so far below MFH, then a landout occurs. You can still land at the home airport, but your not rewarded for your flight with speed points.

10.9.3 Finish Gate
10.9.3.1 A task shall include a Finish Point which is the center of the Finish Gate, and a finish direction which is the true ground
track of a sailplane crossing perpendicular to the finish gate.

10.9.3.2 The Finish Gate is a vertical plane of unlimited height approximately 3300 feet wide with its bottom at 50 feet AGL. At
least one end of the Finish Gate will be clearly marked on the ground. Pilots electing to fly through the Finish Gate must pass
through it only in the specified direction with sufficient energy to fly a full or partial pattern to a safe landing on the airfield.
10.9.4 Rolling finish
10.9.4.1 When a Finish Gate is in use, the CD shall designate one or more rolling finish areas on the home airfield.
10.9.4.2 Communications
10.9.4.2.1 When four miles from a rolling finish, the pilot shall transmit "[Contest ID] four miles, rolling finish."
10.9.4.3 Pilots performing a rolling finish shall touch down and roll to a stop as specified by the CD, and will be timed as the
sailplane comes to a complete stop.

10.9.4.4 If announced by the CD prior to the start of competition, a time adjustment will be added to rolling finishes. This
adjustment will be based on the vertical and horizontal distance between the rolling finish and the location designated for a flying
finish.

Both finishes, share the same thing, as the pilot must cross a line to finish. The height is what's different and the "gate" allows a rolling finish where the "cylinder" does not. The cylinder doesn't allow speed points for making the airport below MFH-200 feet. Since a rolling finish is allowed for a "gate" with slightly reduced speed points, then a rolling finish should also be allowed for a cylinder, making it constant for both types of finishes. If an entrant can not make the MFH as in a cylinder, then a rolling finish, with a few added minutes, shouldn't it be allowed to get the reduced speed points? The "few minutes" which can be set by the CD at each contest site. Remember we have rules for unsafe flying, patterns and landings.

#711.

[kirk.stant]

I've always preferred a finish gate for one big reason - it drastically decreases "clockwatching" while approaching the finish, allowing more time for looking out and finding/avoiding conflicting traffic while planning how to merge into the pattern. And since you knew that you could finish either high or low, you could have a plan for each case; if high and in traffic, stay high; if alone, push over and finish fast and low; if really low, call a rolling finish and squeak in. Done all of them, and never worried about losing points by being too low, or trying to ooch over an invisible line in the sky...

Now with flarm, getting surprised by someone at the finish should be rare.

I do see the potential problem of a lot of finishers at the same time at a small field - which is where a cylinder makes sense to give everyone time (altitude) to sequence for landing.

But at a big field with lots of landing room - perhaps some brave CDs should try some gate finishes (perhaps tied to -gasp! - a speed task) and see how pilots like it.

kirk
66

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> I've always preferred a finish gate for one big reason - it drastically decreases "clockwatching" while approaching the finish, allowing more time for looking out and finding/avoiding conflicting traffic while planning how to merge into the pattern. And since you knew that you could finish either high or low, you could have a plan for each case; if high and in traffic, stay high; if alone, push over and finish fast and low; if really low, call a rolling finish and squeak in. Done all of them, and never worried about losing points by being too low, or trying to ooch over an invisible line in the sky...
>
>
>
> Now with flarm, getting surprised by someone at the finish should be rare..
>
>
>
> I do see the potential problem of a lot of finishers at the same time at a small field - which is where a cylinder makes sense to give everyone time (altitude) to sequence for landing.
>
>
>
> But at a big field with lots of landing room - perhaps some brave CDs should try some gate finishes (perhaps tied to -gasp! - a speed task) and see how pilots like it.
>
>
>
> kirk
>
> 66

That's an interesting point Kirk.

For those airports with one runway and you can't land a bunch of gliders line-abreast, I've been thinking about the new GP start (BTW - thanks to BB for coming up with an elegant and flexible approach to make that happen). Judging from observations of GP contests it seems like you might end up with most of a class finishing in a narrow time window (start as a gaggle, fly the task as a gaggle, finish as a gaggle). What do you think is a reasonable amount of altitude buffer to allow, say 12 gliders to land within a few minutes on a single runway? Do we need to abide by the "one airplane on the runway at a time" rule or do people land in formation like the Thunderbirds (notice I didn't say Blue Angels)?

9B

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:53:34 PM UTC-6, wrote:

> For those airports with one runway and you can't land a bunch of gliders line-abreast, I've been thinking about the new GP start (BTW - thanks to BB for coming up with an elegant and flexible approach to make that happen). Judging from observations of GP contests it seems like you might end up with most of a class finishing in a narrow time window (start as a gaggle, fly the task as a gaggle, finish as a gaggle). What do you think is a reasonable amount of altitude buffer to allow, say 12 gliders to land within a few minutes on a single runway? Do we need to abide by the "one airplane on the runway at a time" rule or do people land in formation like the Thunderbirds (notice I didn't say Blue Angels)?

Well, if the runway is wide enough, and everyone stays heads-up, you should be able to put a bunch down as long as everyone lands long. Alternate sides and roll out as far as you can. If I know it's going to be crowded and (via flarm or 4 mile calls) i'm in the middle of the pack, I'm going to look for a pretty high finish! If I'm in front then I'm going to speed up and fly a short fast pattern and land real long. But we should be able to land with about 200' spacing (tow-rope length) as long as everyone goes long and easy on the brakes, and keeps to their side of the runway. First guy holds 60 knots until in the flare and everybody follows at the same speed.

Kirk

[Wallace Berry[_2_]]

In article >,
"Eric Bick (1DB)" > wrote:

>.
>
> Wow. This whole thread is fascinating - I'm looking at flying my first
> competitions this season, and finding I'm in way over my head. My comments
> are a bit off the main thread, but relevant to me and perhaps others that
> aren't competition pros.
>
> The idea of thermaling at 500' AGL or lower is beyond my comprehension at
> this point in my soaring career, and entering a landing pattern at 500' -
> 700' from a mile out contrary to all my student piloting lessons (even though
> I can calculate that it is readily doable in my glider).
>
> The rules themselves seem straightforward, even though I have little idea of
> how they play out in a contest. And the start and finish cylinder concepts
> seem straightforward. All I'm really interested in for my first tries is
> finishing each day, flying safely, not doing anything stupid, leaving plenty
> of margin, scoring some points, and having a challenge and fun (i.e. wanting
> to do it again).
>
> I expect as time goes on, flying more contests will lead to my learning and
> appreciating the strategies and tactics discussed in a lot of this thread -
> but my main concerns are whether the current rules are in fact safe for a
> neophyte to contests and a relatively low-timer. From the discussions, I'm
> not getting a clear sense of whether they are or not (specifically as related
> to the finish).
>
> I understand we are all subject to sometimes making dumb decisions, or the
> weather making our plans (and margins) vanish - but the rules should
> basically enable safe flying in contests, even accounting to some degree the
> wide variance in risk different pilots are willing to take under varying
> circumstances. Reassure me that the rules do enable basically safe flying in
> contests. I have to assume they do since the fatality rate doesn't seem to be
> something that draws headline attention.
>
> Eric Bick

Hi Eric,

You are gonna love contest flying. I look at a contest as a way to go
spend a week flying cross country with a few dozen of my best friends, a
bunch of people around just to make sure I have great time with tow
availability guaranteed on a predictable schedule, weather forecasting
and tasking done for me, food and drink arranged if I want it, evening
socializing, retrieve crew spring-loaded. Sometimes the weather even
cooperates for a truly great day. What could be better?

As far as taking risks: How much are you willing to risk to win a little
bronze coin and your matchbook sized portrait in the December issue of
SOARING? Not much? Same here. Rules or not, fly to have fun and live to
fly again.

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

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 6:49:25 PM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2014 7:53:34 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
>
>
> > For those airports with one runway and you can't land a bunch of gliders line-abreast, I've been thinking about the new GP start (BTW - thanks to BB for coming up with an elegant and flexible approach to make that happen).. Judging from observations of GP contests it seems like you might end up with most of a class finishing in a narrow time window (start as a gaggle, fly the task as a gaggle, finish as a gaggle). What do you think is a reasonable amount of altitude buffer to allow, say 12 gliders to land within a few minutes on a single runway? Do we need to abide by the "one airplane on the runway at a time" rule or do people land in formation like the Thunderbirds (notice I didn't say Blue Angels)?
>
>
>
> Well, if the runway is wide enough, and everyone stays heads-up, you should be able to put a bunch down as long as everyone lands long. Alternate sides and roll out as far as you can. If I know it's going to be crowded and (via flarm or 4 mile calls) i'm in the middle of the pack, I'm going to look for a pretty high finish! If I'm in front then I'm going to speed up and fly a short fast pattern and land real long. But we should be able to land with about 200' spacing (tow-rope length) as long as everyone goes long and easy on the brakes, and keeps to their side of the runway. First guy holds 60 knots until in the flare and everybody follows at the same speed.
>
> Kirk


Okay all the "ifs" and "as long as" made me wonder about the odds of pulling that off. Would we need a procedure?

What if the first guy has minimal energy and ends up in the middle of the runway?

9B

[Andy Gough[_2_]]

> What if the first guy has minimal energy and ends up in the middle of the runway?
> 9B

Certainly if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.

But we are back to having to make rules again and god forbid... graduated penalties. If we have to accept someone will thermal at 500 ft on the edge of a 1 mile finish cylinder we have to accept someone will land in the middle of the runway and cause problems for everyone else that follows.

There are solutions but we won't like them because they increase organizer overhead or infringe on our sense of liberty. The simple solutions are lots of manpower to move the offenders or some straightforward hard discipline.

Operating in confined spaces requires much higher standards and discipline. When we have to ask the question: "What if the first guy has minimal energy and ends up in the middle of the runway?", it is an acceptance that we are unable to rise to the standards because we do not have universal and effective discipline, hence the rules to attempt to overcome these deficits.

The finish can often be an over crowded place. We need high standards and discipline to operate in this environment. The alternative is to spread the field out and give everyone more time and space.

Andy Gough

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 6:26:50 AM UTC-8, Andy Gough wrote:
> > What if the first guy has minimal energy and ends up in the middle of the runway?
>
> > 9B
>
> Certainly if wishes were horses then beggars would ride.
>
> But we are back to having to make rules again and god forbid... graduated penalties. If we have to accept someone will thermal at 500 ft on the edge of a 1 mile finish cylinder we have to accept someone will land in the middle of the runway and cause problems for everyone else that follows.
>
> There are solutions but we won't like them because they increase organizer overhead or infringe on our sense of liberty. The simple solutions are lots of manpower to move the offenders or some straightforward hard discipline.
>
> Operating in confined spaces requires much higher standards and discipline. When we have to ask the question: "What if the first guy has minimal energy and ends up in the middle of the runway?", it is an acceptance that we are unable to rise to the standards because we do not have universal and effective discipline, hence the rules to attempt to overcome these deficits.
>
> The finish can often be an over crowded place. We need high standards and discipline to operate in this environment. The alternative is to spread the field out and give everyone more time and space.
>
> Andy Gough

Well said - you have to make an assessment of the environment and the capabilities of the people in it. Then you try to set it up so that the odds of exceeding the ability of the entire system to operate within acceptable limits are low. Wishing the limits were different or that people's capabilities were different won't make either one true.

[kirk.stant]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 10:02:49 PM UTC-6, wrote:

> What if the first guy has minimal energy and ends up in the middle of the runway?

You have to plan for that - which is why you keep extra energy in the pattern until committed to land. In this case, until the guy can hop out and get his glider off the runway, you now have 2 choices - land long (same as before, just a shorter runway to do it on) or land short (not a good choice unless you are last in the gaggle landing or are also low on energy, then probably best to land on brick one and get off runway as soon as possible - anyone following you should be able to see that soon enough to land long.

Maybe we need a Condor mission made up that simulates this situation?

Kirk

[Dale Watkins]

I read this RAS with thread as a non contest pilot and outside observer. The flying community will never be able to tell a pilot what he/she can/should do to mitigate risk (instructors can only suggest) - a competitive pilot will find a way to work the rules. However, I think the simple flight test would help change the risk taking out of the program.

You are found circling looking for lift (subject to trace) below 700 ft any where on course (ridge maybe lower) you are scored as a landout with a small bonus for making a good landout with downwind final pattern. No pattern no bonus. period. (hard deck)

If you have not started the task (i.e. relight scenario seen in Ionia) in start cylinder below 500 your DQ'ed (why not land a relight?)

You are found looking for lift between 1 mile and 2 miles from finish below 500 FT - scored as a landout with bonus for airport landing and/or bonus for making a pattern good landout.

I my mind all everyone is saying is "Hey PIC - Make a good risk free landing judged by a good pattern for any landing pattern - no crap short cuts - considering each ship has different flying performances - it has to be hard to determine a MFH with balanced equity. 500 ft might be easy for some and harder for others. So just complete a good pattern.

ZEN

[[email protected]]

On Saturday, January 25, 2014 9:01:08 AM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Friday, January 24, 2014 10:02:49 PM UTC-6, wrote:
>
> Maybe we need a Condor mission made up that simulates this situation?

Might be interesting to see what potential issues are. I've only done a little Condor flying and I don't know if it's all that great at "head on a swivel" spontaneously trying to set up landing sequencing from 300 feet.

The only reason I'm curious is that I'm guessing a CD would really want to know what the finish would look like before calling it under GP conditions. It's a bit of a speculation as it remains to be seen how much it gets called.

[Dave Springford]

At the 2001 15 m Nationals in Uvalde, we used a finish line and had 69 gliders in the contest. I think this meets the criteria of lots of gliders and limited runway space.

I don't recall any problems recovering 69 gliders on the runway and taxiway with the line finish. Everyone was told to land long and clear the runway.. Crews were waiting at the mid-field taxiway and pulled their pilots out of the way. We crew-less pilots made sure we rolled well clear while we retrieved the car.

You don't need to simulate this, we have lots of experience with it, you just have to go back a bunch of years.

As has been said before in this thread, all it requires is discipline and organization on the part of the pilots, the organizers and the crews.

The finish line is by far my preferred finish gate. A 500 ft cylinder with speed points all the way to a rolling finish is my next favoured finish.

The concept of navigating to some point in 3D space at the edge of a cylinder with a floor for a finish requires too much head in the cockpit at the wrong time. With a line or 500 ft cylinder to the ground, the final glide can be accomplished visually within the last 5 miles and keeps the heads out of the cockpit.

[Sean F (F2)]

Watch the reaction of this kid at the very end of this finish gate...

http://youtu.be/n3i-z2CCeCM

[Sean F (F2)]

Wow. That sure shut everyone up.....

[kirk.stant]

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 1:52:11 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Wow. That sure shut everyone up.....

What's your point?

Without context, that was either a perfectly judged final glide, or a really lucky rolling finish.

I've done both in the past, and squeakers are no fun, but they sure can be exhilarating! And tend to make you come in really high the next time!

And since he was over landable fields all the way in, how was this dangerous? At most places in US, this would be stupid, and wouldn't be worth the risk.

So - wanna be safe, stay high. Wanna take a chance, how much of a safety pad do you want? Too low, you are the PIC, you make the decision - land out safely, because breaking a glider is guaranteed to lose you the contest!

Don't like having to make tough decisions about final glides in order to win? Funny, I thought we were talking about racing...

Kirk
66

[Bravo Zulu]

On Friday, January 24, 2014 8:10:34 AM UTC-6, wrote:
> Good points Kevin.
>
>
>
> On Friday, January 24, 2014 8:01:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:
>
> > If a 700ft finish is too low for a 18 meter national contest, then it is probably too low for a Regional. Yes, I understand the caveat of diving off a ridge and would not have a problem with that.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Last year at Perry and at Cordele, I was racing my Silent-IN, the 12 meter, 31/1 L/D.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > We had 700 foot finishes at both sites. I understand this is comfortable for a modern 15 or 18 meter ship and leaves plenty of margin.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This does not leave much if any margin for me, and found that I needed to take extra height to be safe.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I am racing too, and this leaves us essentially racing to a different finish points. You are racing to a finish height that gives you an adequate safety margin and I am racing to the same point, but having to take more altitude for the same safety factor.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I understand UH's comment about immediately joining the pattern in an orderly fashion, but I think this could also be done with a 1000 foot finish and some more spoilers added.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > This also gives a little more room is someone has a problem on landing and obstructs the runway.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Kevin
>
> >
>
> > 192

To add to Kevin's point. I have seen some pilots take such a long down-wind turn to final that I could have turned inside of their pattern and had plenty of room. If I were in his glider, that would be a real problem for a short wing glider. A higher finish hurts no one as long as we are all going to the same finish. If we keep the pattern tight, low energy or lower L/D gliders have an easier time transitioning to pattern and landing.

[Sean F (F2)]

I was simply putting out an interesting video of an 18 yr. old kid doing a minimal energy, final glide into a rolling finish. Clearly this video is highly relevant to this thread.

I am a surprised that more RC supporters did not comment on the safety connotations of this kids final glide since it is clearly deemed unsafe and bad behavior by the RC. I am also surprised that more supporters of no MFH and less severe of a penalty did not comment in support of this kids exciting finish as what they want to do at their next contest.

I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.

Here are some more "good" (US illegal) final glides:

1) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZpRbg80kis

2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wZxvYMC2QvI

3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-xOZ2luGZA

Sean

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 4:42:50 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
> On Sunday, January 26, 2014 1:52:11 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > Wow. That sure shut everyone up.....
>
>
>
> What's your point?
>
>
>
> Without context, that was either a perfectly judged final glide, or a really lucky rolling finish.
>
>
>
> I've done both in the past, and squeakers are no fun, but they sure can be exhilarating! And tend to make you come in really high the next time!
>
>
>
> And since he was over landable fields all the way in, how was this dangerous? At most places in US, this would be stupid, and wouldn't be worth the risk.
>
>
>
> So - wanna be safe, stay high. Wanna take a chance, how much of a safety pad do you want? Too low, you are the PIC, you make the decision - land out safely, because breaking a glider is guaranteed to lose you the contest!
>
>
>
> Don't like having to make tough decisions about final glides in order to win? Funny, I thought we were talking about racing...
>
>
>
> Kirk
>
> 66

[Mike the Strike]

Good luck trying that out west (any of the glider fields in Arizona), Parowan, Moriarty etc, etc. There's a big difference in executing the final glide in smooth late day European conditions over landable fields than over rocks and cactus in the late afternoon sink!

The rules have to anticipate the worst case conditions, not the most favorable!

Mike

[Dave Springford]

Was it safe? Yes.

As Kirk points out at no time, once he was below 1000 ft, did he not have a landing option directly in front of him.

Was it fun? I doubt it, no one wants to cut it that close.
Is it good for US contests? It depends on the location, Uvalde, Hobbs, no. Somewhere in the middle of Kansas, could be.

But let's look at some other questions?

Was the pilot familiar with the area?
Did the pilot know he had landing options within the last 1-2 km


As has been pointed out on RAS before, many of the European teams do a good reconnaissance of the approach areas to the airport and determine what fields are landable on the approaches to the airport. This kind of preparation on the ground is really beneficial when you are on a marginal glide.

Another thing to consider is that the finish on that task was a 3 km cylinder and according to IGC rules, once you have crossed the finish line you don't have to land at the airport. According to his IGC file, he stopped his landing roll 2.5 km inside the cylinder and crossed the cylinder at 250ft AGL. since he didn't have to land at the airport to get all the points, he had no rules incentive to continue to the airport. Therefore, one could presume that in his determination he had sufficient height to land at the airport.

From what I see in the video, he was right - he could make it.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 4:55:44 PM UTC-7, Dave Springford wrote:
> Was it safe? Yes.
>
>
>
> As Kirk points out at no time, once he was below 1000 ft, did he not have a landing option directly in front of him.
>
>
>
> Was it fun? I doubt it, no one wants to cut it that close.
>
> Is it good for US contests? It depends on the location, Uvalde, Hobbs, no. Somewhere in the middle of Kansas, could be.
>
>
>
> But let's look at some other questions?
>
>
>
> Was the pilot familiar with the area?
>
> Did the pilot know he had landing options within the last 1-2 km
>
>
>
>
>
> As has been pointed out on RAS before, many of the European teams do a good reconnaissance of the approach areas to the airport and determine what fields are landable on the approaches to the airport. This kind of preparation on the ground is really beneficial when you are on a marginal glide.
>
>
>
> Another thing to consider is that the finish on that task was a 3 km cylinder and according to IGC rules, once you have crossed the finish line you don't have to land at the airport. According to his IGC file, he stopped his landing roll 2.5 km inside the cylinder and crossed the cylinder at 250ft AGL. since he didn't have to land at the airport to get all the points, he had no rules incentive to continue to the airport. Therefore, one could presume that in his determination he had sufficient height to land at the airport.
>
>
>
> From what I see in the video, he was right - he could make it.

I agree with Dave on this. Its the JWGC, they might be young but they are good. He had plenty of options and seems to already know where he would be landing. Sure, no one wants a finish like that, but it shows it can be done with prior planning. World Teams scout out all the landable fields ahead of time, not only around the airport, but out on course.
It may surprize you, that some of our top pilots do the same scouting when they go to a US National. Some even arrive early and drive around the task area looking over the fields.

#711.

[Brian[_1_]]

Hello Eric, and other non-contest pilots.

Don't be put off from contest flying by the Winter rantings and discussions of rules Minutia.

99% of the time Race rules are very simple. Start below a certain height, fly to all the turn points and finish above a the designated height.
Have fun, you will probably fly to destinations and distance you might not otherwise fly to.

Like another poster said it is basically a week of flying with a bunch other glider pilots who happen to be flying a similar course.

Brian

[Andrew Brayer]

Andy:

You took all of the words out of my mouth

[Andrew Brayer]

I dont think anyone wants to do that at their next contest sean.... Thats silly to say.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:44:11 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:

>I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.

Sean - It's pretty easy to tell when you're trolling.

It's pretty simple:

If you make it it was safe, if you brake your glider it was unsafe, if you die or kill someone it was really unsafe.

Trouble is you can't predict ahead of time - otherwise what you dial into the glide computer 40 miles out would be pretty much exactly what you see when you cross the finish. Saying that it's the PIC's job to manage the risk is a bit of a misuse of language. Risk is by definition the part that you can't manage - it's the pilot's job to decide if (s)he wants to take a risk or not - with imperfect information. We can set the system up such that lots of risks are allowed or not, with winning on the line against a small, but impossible to calculate probability that the risk that can win the day might also end in catastrophe. Sometime it does - not because the pilot was unskilled or dumb, but because (s)he was just unlucky despite skilled piloting.

Having watched a friend (on the US World Team) put a final glide with a bit of extra sink between the high and low wires at the airport boundary and having pulled the shattered wreckage of my glider off a road while they carted my Dad (a 10,000 hour experimental test pilot) off to the hospital for a 5-month stay from which he never totally recovered I have to say that I don't really see the point of the sport to see how close we can fly to obstacles without chickening out.

So my view is some reasonable structures in how the game is set up are appropriate. It needs to strike a balance and be appropriate to the circumstances - terrain, airport, number of competitors, experience levels, glider performance. This thread started with a contention that there is dangerous behavior (circling low) that needs to be addressed in the rules, rather than left to pilot judgement, so there is some agreement that the rules shouldn't tempt people to take unnecessary risks - we just have to decide which ones and how to do it with the minimum possible impact on the enjoyment of the sport.

This is from a guy who had JJ yell at me more than once for doing beatups at contests.

But that's just me.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:06:55 PM UTC-8, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:

> It may surprize you, that some of our top pilots do the same scouting when they go to a US National. Some even arrive early and drive around the task area looking over the fields.

> #711.

Guess why I've been spending time around Montague Tom.

This is a very good idea, not just for final glide. I've scouted unmarked runways, roads, better fields in a number of task areas in the spots where airfields are spotty and terrain is - um - unpleasant. The best ones go into my personal waypoint database in case they are needed.

[[email protected]]

> I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.

Sean, I think your answer lies in another question to the community. It is,

1) Are you (a current or potential contestant) willing to execute the sort of finish shown in the videos in a contest?

2) If the answer is NO, would you accept pilots executing this sort of approach on a given day in order to earn speed points, whereas you would only earn distance points for executing a safe landout?

There is a large contingent of pilots that reasonably thinks that if you make it to the airport property, you should earn your speed points. However, for other pilots who are not willing to execute a marginal final glide like that, in some ways it is unfair to them that someone can "out-crazy" them and do better in the contest.

Consider this as well, while a pilot may answer Yes to first question I presented, maybe even a majority, it is not good for the community or the sport when someone gets killed doing this, or worse yet unexpectedly kills some poor guy on the ground while attempting this sort of final glide. As a result, I think the most prudent decision would be to have a finish that leaves abundant energy for a full pattern without attempting this sort of stuff shown in the videos, as exhilarating as it may be for some pilots. Leave the dicey final glides, VNE starts, low passes after finishes, etc to Condor. ;)

Best Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:54:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:06:55 PM UTC-8, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:
>
>
>
> > It may surprize you, that some of our top pilots do the same scouting when they go to a US National. Some even arrive early and drive around the task area looking over the fields.
>
>
>
> > #711.
>
>
>
> Guess why I've been spending time around Montague Tom.
>
>
>
> This is a very good idea, not just for final glide. I've scouted unmarked runways, roads, better fields in a number of task areas in the spots where airfields are spotty and terrain is - um - unpleasant. The best ones go into my personal waypoint database in case they are needed.

Yes, its true. One of our very best US Team pilots who has almost as many National titles as KS, always arrives several days early at a Nationals. They take one full day just driving around, remarking maps and looking over off airport landing sites. Going so far even to check to see how much it might have rained in one area versus another.
I know others who use IGC files from those who do well at a contest site, looking at their traces where they stopped and thermaled at and marking those spots on a map to see if theirs any correlation(if thats the right word) going on.
Watching uTube videos and not being their, then trying to past judgement, is rather extremely difficult to do. Those pilots who make it to the WJGC's are good and they do task extremely hard. I believe at the last WJSC that Boyd Willat flew in, he did finish the task, but landed off airport. Down in Argentina, the same was happening. One day that Kawa won, he simply out drifted everyone to make the greatest distance. Its the contest site that allows this. Some of our sites just don't offer this. Thats where good judgement and wise decisions are needed.
Maybe best to say its been a good discussion. Several years ago we had clouds, then silly Walmart cell phones, now this. Next year might be more chemicals and better toilet paper in the potties are needed.....hell if I know..

#711.

[Andrew Brayer]

On Monday, January 27, 2014 1:09:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.
>
>
>
> Sean, I think your answer lies in another question to the community. It is,
>
>
>
> 1) Are you (a current or potential contestant) willing to execute the sort of finish shown in the videos in a contest?
>
>
>
> 2) If the answer is NO, would you accept pilots executing this sort of approach on a given day in order to earn speed points, whereas you would only earn distance points for executing a safe landout?
>
>
>
> There is a large contingent of pilots that reasonably thinks that if you make it to the airport property, you should earn your speed points. However, for other pilots who are not willing to execute a marginal final glide like that, in some ways it is unfair to them that someone can "out-crazy" them and do better in the contest.
>
>
>
> Consider this as well, while a pilot may answer Yes to first question I presented, maybe even a majority, it is not good for the community or the sport when someone gets killed doing this, or worse yet unexpectedly kills some poor guy on the ground while attempting this sort of final glide. As a result, I think the most prudent decision would be to have a finish that leaves abundant energy for a full pattern without attempting this sort of stuff shown in the videos, as exhilarating as it may be for some pilots. Leave the dicey final glides, VNE starts, low passes after finishes, etc to Condor. ;)
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Daniel Sazhin

"A child who thinks and speaks like a man," - page 1072 of dune. no disrespect on the child part, this was simply a very eloquent post.

to comment on points one and two, i don't think people should execute low energy straight-ins, but in this specific case, the guy in the video cleary had options--Assuming he HAD scouted the area, and knew he wasn't approaching wires and fences.

Regarding the "out-crazy" part: with risk comes reward. having said that, sometimes the risk taken is too great for the reward. I am not insinuating that if you want to win you should take foolish chances; merely that sometimes the pilot who takes a chance, whether it is on a cloud, a ridge, or a final glide, gets the pay-off from taking the risk. our game is about taking chances and managing risk.

regarding a finish with abundant energy:

Most competition sailplanes do just fine as far as a pattern is concerned after a well executed low pass. if you see it going poorly, you have to change your plans. we shouldn't be afraid of them. with energy and planning there is nothing unsafe about it. does that mean lower performance gliders need more altitude? of course.


under US rules VNE starts aren't really an issue. the best answer to dicey final glides is preparation. i know you're all aware of this, but: if you you fly cross country, you need to be prepared to handle adverse situations, many of which I don't believe condor can adequately prepare one for.

gliding carries with it some amount of uncertainty. that's what keeps it fun.

[Andrew Brayer]

On Monday, January 27, 2014 1:09:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> > I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.
>
>
>
> Sean, I think your answer lies in another question to the community. It is,
>
>
>
> 1) Are you (a current or potential contestant) willing to execute the sort of finish shown in the videos in a contest?
>
>
>
> 2) If the answer is NO, would you accept pilots executing this sort of approach on a given day in order to earn speed points, whereas you would only earn distance points for executing a safe landout?
>
>
>
> There is a large contingent of pilots that reasonably thinks that if you make it to the airport property, you should earn your speed points. However, for other pilots who are not willing to execute a marginal final glide like that, in some ways it is unfair to them that someone can "out-crazy" them and do better in the contest.
>
>
>
> Consider this as well, while a pilot may answer Yes to first question I presented, maybe even a majority, it is not good for the community or the sport when someone gets killed doing this, or worse yet unexpectedly kills some poor guy on the ground while attempting this sort of final glide. As a result, I think the most prudent decision would be to have a finish that leaves abundant energy for a full pattern without attempting this sort of stuff shown in the videos, as exhilarating as it may be for some pilots. Leave the dicey final glides, VNE starts, low passes after finishes, etc to Condor. ;)
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Daniel Sazhin



"A child who thinks and speaks like a man," - page 1072 of dune. no disrespect on the child part, this was simply a very mature post from a young guy.

to comment on points one and two, i don't think people should execute low energy straight-ins, but in this specific case, the guy in the video cleary had options--Assuming he HAD scouted the area, and knew he wasn't approaching wires and fences.

Regarding the "out-crazy" part: with risk comes reward. having said that, sometimes the risk taken is too great for the reward. I am not insinuating that if you want to win you should take foolish chances; merely that sometimes the pilot who takes a chance, whether it is on a cloud, a ridge, or a final glide, gets the pay-off from taking the risk. our game is about taking chances and managing risk.

regarding a finish with abundant energy:

Most competition sailplanes do just fine as far as a pattern is concerned after a well executed low pass. if you see it going poorly, you have to change your plans. we shouldn't be afraid of them. with energy and planning there is nothing unsafe about it. does that mean lower performance gliders need more altitude? of course.


under US rules VNE starts aren't really an issue. the best answer to dicey final glides is preparation. i know you're all aware of this, but: if you you fly cross country, you need to be prepared to handle adverse situations, many of which I don't believe condor can adequately prepare one for.

lastly, i'm saying this conversationally, rather than argumentatively.

gliding carries with it some amount of uncertainty. that's what keeps it fun.

[Eric Bick (1DB)]

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:15:46 PM UTC-8, Brian wrote:
> Hello Eric, and other non-contest pilots.
>
>
>
> Don't be put off from contest flying by the Winter rantings and discussions of rules Minutia.
>
>
>
> 99% of the time Race rules are very simple. Start below a certain height, fly to all the turn points and finish above a the designated height.
>
> Have fun, you will probably fly to destinations and distance you might not otherwise fly to.
>
>
>
> Like another poster said it is basically a week of flying with a bunch other glider pilots who happen to be flying a similar course.
>
>
>
> Brian

Being totally a racing neophyte, what I'm wondering is why so much discussion about complexities, or rather, why such complexities to discuss? Racing would seem to be a simple concept - start/fly the course/finish. Basic safety and points rules are necessary. Beyond that, first to finish is winner.

There would be more points associated with finishing than landing out going really fast - crossing the finish line is what counts. You run different classes to account for performance differences, but everyone within a class is on an equal handicap (none) basis. Start and finish lines are lines to be crossed in a specified direction, and don't have to be takeoff or landing field (to enable multiple planes abreast dashes to finish). (Maybe this is touching on GP format, not sure.) Basic idea is that racing means who is fastest around a course.

Whole point is "simpler is better." Tactics and strategies still enter in, but for getting across the line first. I'm looking at badge flying where turnpoints are made or not. Doesn't matter how far past a turn point you fly, either you make it or you don't. Make the turn points, you get the badge. Miss one by a meter, you don't. Only finish height rule is loss of height penalty - start/finish. Otherwise, totally up to pilot.

And why are the races on closed courses each day? Why not Field A to Field B day one; Field B to Field C day 2; and final day Field N to Field A? Maybe some logistical challenges, but might add some challenge and interest.

All these questions/comments probably are a different thread, but what the heck - it's winter ... even in SoCal it's winter (sort of).

Can't wait to try my first contest this spring ... fly it like you say - start/fly course/finish per rules - massage the complexities during the winter.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

>
> "A child who thinks and speaks like a man," - page 1072 of dune. no disrespect on the child part, this was simply a very mature post from a young guy.
>


Time to get my geek on...

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that
brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass
over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner
eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only
I will remain.” - Frank Herbert

Cheers

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

<Major snippage...>

> I agree with Dave on this. Its the JWGC, they might be young but they are
> good. He had plenty of options and seems to already know where he would be
> landing. Sure, no one wants a finish like that, but it shows it can be done
> with prior planning. World Teams scout out all the landable fields ahead of
> time, not only around the airport, but out on course. It may surprize you,
> that some of our top pilots do the same scouting when they go to a US
> National. Some even arrive early and drive around the task area looking
> over the fields.
>
> #711

FWIW, no need to wait until "you're a nationals level contest pilot to
pre-scout fields"...a thought I'd hope would be obvious to every (potential)
XC pilot...but which I know for a fact, isn't! :-)

I started scouting fields (& brain picking, and cross-checking
information/feedback) before I had my license, so foreign to my brain was the
very idea of not landing at the gliderport of my takeoff, much a
never-before-seen field. Continued to pre-scout over the next 3+ decades.
Eventually moving to the intermountain west (where fields in the hills can be
few, far-between, misplaced on maps [and now databases], etc., etc.), simply
increased my motivation for "ground truth." Since us northern hemispherians
have reason to believe spring will (eventually) arrive, I've found spring a
Great Time to use those unsoarable (rainy, foggy, dreary) days for extended
day excursions into the hills/boonies to scope out ground truth...good for
one's personal soaring safety/confidence, can be good for the fambly and
mutts, good for everyone's souls...

Bob - never a "real contest pilot" - W.

[Sean F (F2)]

To sum up this thread...

1) I think the position the RC is in is an incredibly challenging one. But overall some form of an MFH cushion to "protect pilots from themselves" is important and adds to safety in general.

2) I think ANY penalty will cause the bad behavior which is pointed out in the very first post of this thread. The amount of penalty is almost irrelevant unless it is reduced dramatically.

3) I think a moderately reduced penalty structure (1/3 of current, or less) should be applied to a higher MFH standard (1200/1000). This would widen the margin of safety for a pilot trying to circle while making the penalty more acceptable when it is clear that little chance remains for saving the miscalculation.

After than the PIC is on his/her own. If they want to circle at 900 MSL for awhile and try to get above the administrative land out...good luck to you. The rules have done their part in trying to encourage a safe approach into the finish and pattern and landing. And in most cases, that pilot will still have the energy for a safe pattern even after fighting for a while....

Sean

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.
>
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?
>
>
>
> If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.
>
>
>
> To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.
>
>
>
> Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.
>
>
>
> However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.
>
>
>
> If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.
>
>
>
> Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.
>
>
>
> Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.
>
>
>
> Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.
>
>
>
> So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.
>
>
>
> Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”
>
>
>
> So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):
>
>
>
> • Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.
>
>
>
> • Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).
>
>
>
> • Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?
>
>
>
> Let the flame wars begin! ;-)

[Sean F (F2)]

To sum up this thread...

1) I think the position the RC is in is an incredibly challenging one. But overall some form of an MFH cushion to "protect pilots from themselves" is important and adds to safety in general.

2) I think ANY penalty will cause the bad behavior which is pointed out in the very first post of this thread. The amount of penalty is almost irrelevant unless it is reduced dramatically.

3) I think a moderately reduced penalty structure (1/3 of current, or less) should be applied to a higher MFH standard (1200/1000). This would widen the margin of safety for a pilot trying to circle while making the penalty more acceptable when it is clear that little chance remains for saving the miscalculation.

After that the PIC is simply on his or her own. If they want to circle at 800 MSL for awhile and try to get above the administrative land out level....good luck to them. The rules have done their part in trying to encourage a safe approach into the finish and pattern and landing. And in most cases, that pilot will still have the energy for a safe pattern even after fighting for a while...

Sean

[Sean F (F2)]

To sum up this thread...

1) I think the position the RC is an incredibly challenging one. Overall some form of an MFH cushion to "protect pilots from themselves" is important and adds to safety in general. I feel safer because of it, for sure, to be perfectly honest.

2) I think ANY penalty will cause the bad behavior which is pointed out in the very first post of this thread. The amount of penalty is almost irrelevant unless it is reduced dramatically.

3) I think a moderately reduced penalty structure (1/3 of current, or less) should be applied to a higher MFH standard (1200/1000). This would widen the margin of safety for a pilot trying to circle while making the penalty more acceptable when it is clear that little chance remains for saving the miscalculation.

After that the PIC is simply on his or her own. If they want to circle at 800 MSL for awhile and try to get above the administrative land out level....good luck to them. The rules have done their part in trying to encourage a safe approach into the finish and pattern and landing. And in most cases, that pilot will still have the energy for a safe pattern even after fighting for a while...

Sean

[[email protected]]

A tiny PS.

A pilot observed circling at low altitude, 1-2 miles from the finish, over a town or other unlandable terrain, in the general path of finishing gliders, could certainly be given an unsafe flying penalty. The same goes for a pointless huge pull up from 120 knots 400 feet 1.1 miles to 35 knots, 720 feet, 0.5 g's at the cylinder, pulling up underneath other gliders.

The CD has this right. There is nothing that stops a CD from issuing unsafe flying penalties based on the evidence in flight traces. There is nothing that stops fellow competitors from bringing the evidence in such traces to the CD's attention. Perhaps if a few CDs handed out some unsafe flying penalties based on trace evidence, a lot of this demand for rules would go away.

For rare events like these, involving at most one or two events in a season, and where it is generally agreed that the behavior involved is atrociously unsafe, it really is better to use simple tools already at hand than to try to micromanage everything from top down and write a rule or carefully constructed penalty scheme.

The general concept of a high finish, with no speed points for crossing at some point, moves everyone's final glides up, and addresses a quite strong temptation in previous rules to keep going at low altitude. Good. But it's going to be very hard to write a rule or penalty scheme that addresses every single idiotic thing a pilot might do --especially when, like the pull up at the finish, it really does not gain any points, and especially when most pilots don't follow the minutiae of just what the penalties are, once the snow melts.

John Cochrane

[A Wormburner]

Ok so when I finish with all this extra height is it OK to loop it all off
before landing?
How one misses the old days!