500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll

[John Cochrane]

Fellow US pilots:

This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains
a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about
it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less
experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and
world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for
your contests, you have to voice your opinion.

Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.

Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation,
5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet.
You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to
properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From
here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you
find. Common sense says "stop, look for a thermal, and land in this
good field." But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call
you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not
safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.

The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you
don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make
your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to
the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles
out, do that. Forget the race.

This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The
race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet
above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just
as challenging.

The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports
class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it
makes it to nationals.

For more details, including accident statistics, see my article "Safer
Finishes" in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website,

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For_glider

I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website – I'm
sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ

FAQ:

1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.

We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50
feet situation will still take lots of judgment.

There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from "pilot
judgment" decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used
to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits,
and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question
whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban
the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth.

Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive
experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national
level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the
case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are
explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.

2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away

This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish
can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.

Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish,
but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80
kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes
more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it – I have.

3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse.

a) Pulling up over the line.

Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots
racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point.
That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the
whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special
use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the
whole way.

b) Traffic problems.

Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will
interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen
now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But
moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from
thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on
popping up at the last moment.

c) Heads-down

Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not
revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the
airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the
donut.

4. This isn't the number one problem.

It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number
one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are
in the US a distant third.

Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one
problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the
number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and
avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly
errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the
rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost
to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer.

5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed
points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty
or something?

The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when
the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove
"but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points" from the
mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the
same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the
airport.

6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out
of the kitchen.

Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that
physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep
soaring exiting, vote against this rule.


Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no
connection with the rules committee.

John Cochrane (BB)

[Michael Stringfellow]

While I am not going to argue against higher finishes for certain classes, I
am going to make a strong argument against the 500-foot 2-mile donut.

I will preface my remarks by saying that I am not a hot-shot contest pilot,
but I enjoy flying in club contests and the occasional regional. I have
always been very conservative on my final glides, even when I'm not flying
over the notoriously unlandable terrain around my home field..

The 500-foot 2-mile donut was used at this year's Region 9, where I flew in
Sports class. I have to say that I found it harder to judge this finish
than any other. On every flight, I found myself doing mental arithmetic,
trying to figure out whether I was going to make the 500-foot limit, even
though my flight computer said I had the field made with my usual
conservative margins.

The problem is not the 500-foot limit, but the 2-mile donut. My flight
computer cannot computer the height required to make this type of finish. I
suspect many others can't either. The result is that the new rule puts
extra workload on the pilot during the busy final glide when he or she
should be concentrating on other things.

I found it to be a great distraction and did not give me any feeling of
improved safety.

Whatever the finish altitude is deemed to be safe, it should apply to the
standard finish gate. Finishing 2 miles out makes no sense to me and makes
the final glide more complex than it should be.

I should also add that, on a couple of days, after making the 2-mile finish
at Hobbs, I was now approachingt the field at a couple of hundred feet in
the opposite direction from standard and 15-m classes.

Sorry, I.m not convinced!

Mike

ASW 20 WA



"John Cochrane" > wrote in message
om...
> Fellow US pilots:
>
> This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains
> a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about
> it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less
> experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and
> world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for
> your contests, you have to voice your opinion.
>
> Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
> AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
> this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
> land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
> dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
>
> Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation,
> 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet.
> You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to
> properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From
> here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you
> find. Common sense says "stop, look for a thermal, and land in this
> good field." But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call
> you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not
> safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.
>
> The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you
> don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make
> your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to
> the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles
> out, do that. Forget the race.
>
> This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The
> race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet
> above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just
> as challenging.
>
> The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports
> class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it
> makes it to nationals.
>
> For more details, including accident statistics, see my article "Safer
> Finishes" in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website,
>
> http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For_glider
>
> I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm
> sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ
>
> FAQ:
>
> 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.
>
> We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50
> feet situation will still take lots of judgment.
>
> There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from "pilot
> judgment" decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used
> to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits,
> and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question
> whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban
> the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth.
>
> Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive
> experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national
> level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the
> case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are
> explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.
>
> 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away
>
> This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish
> can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.
>
> Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish,
> but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80
> kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes
> more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have.
>
> 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse.
>
> a) Pulling up over the line.
>
> Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots
> racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point.
> That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the
> whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special
> use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the
> whole way.
>
> b) Traffic problems.
>
> Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will
> interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen
> now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But
> moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from
> thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on
> popping up at the last moment.
>
> c) Heads-down
>
> Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not
> revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the
> airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the
> donut.
>
> 4. This isn't the number one problem.
>
> It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number
> one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are
> in the US a distant third.
>
> Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one
> problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the
> number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and
> avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly
> errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the
> rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost
> to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer.
>
> 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed
> points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty
> or something?
>
> The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when
> the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove
> "but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points" from the
> mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the
> same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the
> airport.
>
> 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out
> of the kitchen.
>
> Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that
> physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep
> soaring exiting, vote against this rule.
>
>
> Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no
> connection with the rules committee.
>
> John Cochrane (BB)

[Marc Ramsey]

"John Cochrane" > wrote...
> Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
> AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
> this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
> land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
> dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
> ...
> The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you
> don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make
> your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to
> the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles
> out, do that. Forget the race.

I hate to sound like one of those libertarians, but I have to say this proposed
rule goes too far. I defend the right of every contest pilot to find new and
creative ways to kill themselves, where I draw the line is when they threaten to
take me along with them. I'm fully capable of making my own decisions as to how
high to finish, and whether I'd be better off landing in a good field. The
problem I have with low altitude finishes (particularly with MATs) is that once
I finish, even at a comfortable altitude, I then have to contend with the
possibility of gliders coming in fast and low from various directions. I have
enough trouble landing safely on my own, I can do without the extra distraction
caused by a near miss.

A rule requiring 500 feet at the edge of the finish cylinder, and a reasonable
penalty for a rolling finish, pretty much eliminates this problem. Messing with
donuts and taking away speed points for coming up short is probably only going
to result in rebellion...

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >, bmaclean2
@cox.net says...
> I take great exception with your paragraph that starts
> "Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation."
> Actually, the great majority of contest pilots NEVER find themselves in that
> situation. Ever. If this has been a problem for you, I think you need to
> rethink your strategies.

How did you determine the "great majority of contest pilots NEVER find
themselves in that situation"? My personal experience, and discussing
contest days with the other contestants over 25 years, is that most
pilots will find themselves in that situation at least once, and
frequently several times during their contest career.

It is particularly likely to happen during a contest with poor
weather, or where the contest airport weather routinely dies early. It
is less likely at areas like Minden, where the final glide starting
height is "enforced" by mountains like the Pine Nuts.

Regardless, I'm not sure if I'm in favor of this rule, but I wouldn't
mind trying it. I see no problem managing it with my glide calculator.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[JJ Sinclair]

John Boy,
Your trying to kill a gnat with a sledge hammer. I have been to many contests
with a 500 foot finish rule. This years standard nats at Montague had a 500
foot finish gate. What was the price to pay for not making it? One minute per
100 feet low was added to to your time. Now that's an appropriate penalty. Your
*distance only* penalty is like shooting somebody for shoplifting.

While I got you on the horn, your +15 minute thing is supposed to make things
fairer for the guys that dont have fancy computers that give an ETA. Well
guess what? Everybody is smart enough to make sure they get home 15 minutes
late. All you have succeeded in doing is to add 15 minutes to all optional
tasks. It's kind'a like the railroad that discovered a majority of accidents
involved the caboose being hit by another train. Their solution was to remove
all cabooses. Sounds like adding 15 minutes doesn't it?
JJ Sinclair

[Andy Blackburn]

I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness
of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should
it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information
will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap
it and at what level of competition. If the intent
is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't
object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm
against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical,
empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules
I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating
the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track
the bigger objectives.

9B


At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote:
>We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle
>doesn't pay much
>attention to rules anyway.
>
>John Cochrane wrote:
>> Fellow US pilots:
>>
>> This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few
>>days. It contains
>> a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read
>>it, think about
>> it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits
>>newer, less
>> experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the
>>top 5 national and
>> world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like
>>this idea for
>> your contests, you have to voice your opinion.
>>
>> Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have
>>to be above 500 feet
>> AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If
>>you don't make
>> this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance
>>points when you
>> land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line,
>>you may then
>> dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
>>
>> Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that
>>awful situation,
>> 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe
>>minus 50 feet.
>> You're passing over the last good field, and the last
>>chance to
>> properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for
>>wires, etc. From
>> here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in
>>to whatever you
>> find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal,
>>and land in this
>> good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points
>>and more call
>> you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not
>>fun. It's not
>> safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.
>>
>> The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life
>>decision. If you
>> don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get
>>speed points. Make
>> your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer
>>to squeak it in to
>> the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good
>>field 5 miles
>> out, do that. Forget the race.
>>
>> This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport
>>up 500 feet. The
>> race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport
>>located 500 feet
>> above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just
>>as fun, and just
>> as challenging.
>>
>> The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps
>>only sports
>> class. It will have to have substantial support from
>>pilots before it
>> makes it to nationals.
>>
>> For more details, including accident statistics, see
>>my article 'Safer
>> Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online
>>at my website,
>>
>> http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For
>>>_glider
>>
>> I will also keep updated versions of this message
>>on the website – I'm
>> sure to hear more objections that I can answer in
>>the FAQ
>>
>> FAQ:
>>
>> 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.
>>
>> We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling
>>the Mc 0 + 50
>> feet situation will still take lots of judgment.
>>
>> There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove
>>from 'pilot
>> judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive
>>advantage. We used
>> to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose
>>weight limits,
>> and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave
>>the question
>> whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment.
>>Now we ban
>> the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And
>>so forth.
>>
>> Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires
>>extensive
>> experience and judgment. While there is a good case
>>that national
>> level pilots can be expected to have this judgment,
>>this is not the
>> case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals,
>>which are
>> explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.
>>
>> 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the
>>fun away
>>
>> This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass.
>>The actual finish
>> can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.
>>
>> Many pilots think they will end up too high for a
>>proper low finish,
>> but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at
>>500 feet and 80
>> kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below
>>redline. It takes
>> more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try
>>it – I have.
>>
>> 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that
>>are even worse.
>>
>> a) Pulling up over the line.
>>
>> Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would
>>lead to pilots
>> racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line.
>>Good point.
>> That's why the proposal is now that you must be over
>>500 feet for the
>> whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated
>>like special
>> use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay
>>above 500 feet the
>> whole way.
>>
>> b) Traffic problems.
>>
>> Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside
>>the line will
>> interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as
>>this does not happen
>> now, and all we've done is move the whole business
>>up 500 feet. But
>> moving from a circle to a donut will further separate
>>finishers from
>> thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet
>>counting on
>> popping up at the last moment.
>>
>> c) Heads-down
>>
>> Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports
>>class has not
>> revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to
>>finish over the
>> airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or
>>so margin over the
>> donut.
>>
>> 4. This isn't the number one problem.
>>
>> It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are
>>still the number
>> one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low
>>energy finish are
>> in the US a distant third.
>>
>> Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking
>>the number one
>> problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs
>>are not the
>> number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and
>>look around, and
>> avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule
>>making. Assembly
>> errors are not the number one problem, yet we all
>>do checks and the
>> rules now require them. If we can improve the #99
>>problem, at no cost
>> to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a
>>little bit safer.
>>
>> 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but
>>losing all speed
>> points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on
>>a 5 minute penalty
>> or something?
>>
>> The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks
>>5 miles out when
>> the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole
>>point is to remove
>> 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points'
>>from the
>> mental calculation. The only way to do this is to
>>give essentially the
>> same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking
>>it in to the
>> airport.
>>
>> 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand
>>the heat, get out
>> of the kitchen.
>>
>> Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion.
>>If you think that
>> physical danger and an occasional fatality are important
>>to keep
>> soaring exiting, vote against this rule.
>>
>>
>> Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion
>>and has no
>> connection with the rules committee.
>>
>> John Cochrane (BB)
>
>

[Dave Nadler \YO\]

Sorry, but the comment "Actually, the great majority of contest pilots
NEVER find themselves in that situation." is just plain wrong. Most
of the guys I fly with have been there more than once, in many seasons.
Not to mention me. If you are trying to go fast and/or you fly in weak
weather, you WILL find yourself in this situation.
Best Regards, Dave

"BMacLean" > wrote in message
...
> I find it very offensive the way you use scare tactics and play on
people's
> emotions to get this rule voted in. This post will succeed in
discouraging
> new contest pilots. I take great exception with your paragraph that
starts
> "Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation."
> Actually, the great majority of contest pilots NEVER find themselves in
that
> situation. Ever. If this has been a problem for you, I think you need to
> rethink your strategies.
>
> Barb MacLean

[John]

Somehow, John, I feel that your posting should have ended with the word
"vote".

Perhaps a member of the rules committee should not be 'campaigning' to
shame/scare us into our "opinions".

Personally, I think the 15minute rule, and this rule, are unnecessary
complications to an already overly -complicated sport.

It takes a season of flying just to get used to the new rules! And then
next year, guess what?
New rules!






John Bojack "J4"





> This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains
> a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about
> it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less
> experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and
> world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for
> your contests, you have to voice your opinion.
>
> Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
> AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
> this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
> land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
> dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
>
> Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation,
> 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet.
> You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to
> properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From
> here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you
> find. Common sense says "stop, look for a thermal, and land in this
> good field." But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call
> you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not
> safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.
>
> The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you
> don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make
> your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to
> the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles
> out, do that. Forget the race.
>
> This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The
> race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet
> above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just
> as challenging.
>
> The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports
> class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it
> makes it to nationals.
>
> For more details, including accident statistics, see my article "Safer
> Finishes" in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website,
>
> http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For_glider
>
> I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm
> sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ
>
> FAQ:
>
> 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.
>
> We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50
> feet situation will still take lots of judgment.
>
> There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from "pilot
> judgment" decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used
> to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits,
> and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question
> whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban
> the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth.
>
> Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive
> experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national
> level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the
> case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are
> explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.
>
> 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away
>
> This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish
> can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.
>
> Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish,
> but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80
> kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes
> more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have.
>
> 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse.
>
> a) Pulling up over the line.
>
> Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots
> racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point.
> That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the
> whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special
> use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the
> whole way.
>
> b) Traffic problems.
>
> Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will
> interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen
> now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But
> moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from
> thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on
> popping up at the last moment.
>
> c) Heads-down
>
> Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not
> revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the
> airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the
> donut.
>
> 4. This isn't the number one problem.
>
> It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number
> one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are
> in the US a distant third.
>
> Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one
> problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the
> number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and
> avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly
> errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the
> rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost
> to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer.
>
> 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed
> points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty
> or something?
>
> The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when
> the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove
> "but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points" from the
> mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the
> same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the
> airport.
>
> 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out
> of the kitchen.
>
> Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that
> physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep
> soaring exiting, vote against this rule.
>
>
> Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no
> connection with the rules committee.
>
> John Cochrane (BB)

[Paul Remde]

Hi,

This discussion is very interesting.

I applaud John for his efforts to make sailplane racing safer. I agree with
the theory that if we just move the playing field up 500 feet, it will
dramatically improve safety. It is my impression that is what he is trying
to do.

Why is that so bad?

I also agree that I'd prefer to have fewer rules, but in this case I must
lean toward safety over simplicity.

I must admit that I am a pilot with 2 young children and I will vote for
anything that will allow me to continue to fly contests with less reason to
worry that I'll leave my kids without a father or my wife without her
husband.

I must also admit that I am a relatively inexperienced contest pilot -
having flown in only 4 contests.

Fly Safe,

Paul Remde

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness
> of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should
> it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information
> will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap
> it and at what level of competition. If the intent
> is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't
> object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm
> against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical,
> empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules
> I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating
> the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track
> the bigger objectives.
>
> 9B
>
>
> At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote:
> >We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle
> >doesn't pay much
> >attention to rules anyway.
> >
> >John Cochrane wrote:
> >> Fellow US pilots:
> >>
> >> This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few
> >>days. It contains
> >> a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read
> >>it, think about
> >> it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits
> >>newer, less
> >> experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the
> >>top 5 national and
> >> world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like
> >>this idea for
> >> your contests, you have to voice your opinion.
> >>
> >> Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have
> >>to be above 500 feet
> >> AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If
> >>you don't make
> >> this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance
> >>points when you
> >> land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line,
> >>you may then
> >> dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
> >>
> >> Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that
> >>awful situation,
> >> 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe
> >>minus 50 feet.
> >> You're passing over the last good field, and the last
> >>chance to
> >> properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for
> >>wires, etc. From
> >> here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in
> >>to whatever you
> >> find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal,
> >>and land in this
> >> good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points
> >>and more call
> >> you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not
> >>fun. It's not
> >> safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.
> >>
> >> The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life
> >>decision. If you
> >> don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get
> >>speed points. Make
> >> your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer
> >>to squeak it in to
> >> the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good
> >>field 5 miles
> >> out, do that. Forget the race.
> >>
> >> This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport
> >>up 500 feet. The
> >> race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport
> >>located 500 feet
> >> above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just
> >>as fun, and just
> >> as challenging.
> >>
> >> The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps
> >>only sports
> >> class. It will have to have substantial support from
> >>pilots before it
> >> makes it to nationals.
> >>
> >> For more details, including accident statistics, see
> >>my article 'Safer
> >> Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online
> >>at my website,
> >>
> >> http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For
> >>>_glider
> >>
> >> I will also keep updated versions of this message
> >>on the website - I'm
> >> sure to hear more objections that I can answer in
> >>the FAQ
> >>
> >> FAQ:
> >>
> >> 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.
> >>
> >> We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling
> >>the Mc 0 + 50
> >> feet situation will still take lots of judgment.
> >>
> >> There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove
> >>from 'pilot
> >> judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive
> >>advantage. We used
> >> to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose
> >>weight limits,
> >> and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave
> >>the question
> >> whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment.
> >>Now we ban
> >> the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And
> >>so forth.
> >>
> >> Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires
> >>extensive
> >> experience and judgment. While there is a good case
> >>that national
> >> level pilots can be expected to have this judgment,
> >>this is not the
> >> case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals,
> >>which are
> >> explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.
> >>
> >> 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the
> >>fun away
> >>
> >> This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass.
> >>The actual finish
> >> can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.
> >>
> >> Many pilots think they will end up too high for a
> >>proper low finish,
> >> but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at
> >>500 feet and 80
> >> kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below
> >>redline. It takes
> >> more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try
> >>it - I have.
> >>
> >> 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that
> >>are even worse.
> >>
> >> a) Pulling up over the line.
> >>
> >> Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would
> >>lead to pilots
> >> racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line.
> >>Good point.
> >> That's why the proposal is now that you must be over
> >>500 feet for the
> >> whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated
> >>like special
> >> use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay
> >>above 500 feet the
> >> whole way.
> >>
> >> b) Traffic problems.
> >>
> >> Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside
> >>the line will
> >> interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as
> >>this does not happen
> >> now, and all we've done is move the whole business
> >>up 500 feet. But
> >> moving from a circle to a donut will further separate
> >>finishers from
> >> thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet
> >>counting on
> >> popping up at the last moment.
> >>
> >> c) Heads-down
> >>
> >> Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports
> >>class has not
> >> revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to
> >>finish over the
> >> airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or
> >>so margin over the
> >> donut.
> >>
> >> 4. This isn't the number one problem.
> >>
> >> It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are
> >>still the number
> >> one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low
> >>energy finish are
> >> in the US a distant third.
> >>
> >> Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking
> >>the number one
> >> problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs
> >>are not the
> >> number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and
> >>look around, and
> >> avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule
> >>making. Assembly
> >> errors are not the number one problem, yet we all
> >>do checks and the
> >> rules now require them. If we can improve the #99
> >>problem, at no cost
> >> to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a
> >>little bit safer.
> >>
> >> 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but
> >>losing all speed
> >> points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on
> >>a 5 minute penalty
> >> or something?
> >>
> >> The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks
> >>5 miles out when
> >> the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole
> >>point is to remove
> >> 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points'
> >>from the
> >> mental calculation. The only way to do this is to
> >>give essentially the
> >> same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking
> >>it in to the
> >> airport.
> >>
> >> 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand
> >>the heat, get out
> >> of the kitchen.
> >>
> >> Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion.
> >>If you think that
> >> physical danger and an occasional fatality are important
> >>to keep
> >> soaring exiting, vote against this rule.
> >>
> >>
> >> Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion
> >>and has no
> >> connection with the rules committee.
> >>
> >> John Cochrane (BB)
> >
> >
>
>
>

[BMacLean]

Okay, I get it!

However, Cochrane said that it's really for the new pilots and not the top
pilots anyway. Since I'm in that beginner intermediate contest pilot group,
I can assure you that our problem is not arriving back too low, it's
arriving back with way too much altitude. If new pilots are trying to do
things beyond their capabilities, a 500' finish isn't going to protect them.

Barb



"Dave Nadler "YO"" > wrote in message
...
> Sorry, but the comment "Actually, the great majority of contest pilots
> NEVER find themselves in that situation." is just plain wrong. Most
> of the guys I fly with have been there more than once, in many seasons.
> Not to mention me. If you are trying to go fast and/or you fly in weak
> weather, you WILL find yourself in this situation.
> Best Regards, Dave
>
> "BMacLean" > wrote in message
> ...
> > I find it very offensive the way you use scare tactics and play on
> people's
> > emotions to get this rule voted in. This post will succeed in
> discouraging
> > new contest pilots. I take great exception with your paragraph that
> starts
> > "Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation."
> > Actually, the great majority of contest pilots NEVER find themselves in
> that
> > situation. Ever. If this has been a problem for you, I think you need
to
> > rethink your strategies.
> >
> > Barb MacLean
>
>

[Michael McNulty]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> While I got you on the horn, your +15 minute thing is supposed to make
things
> fairer for the guys that dont have fancy computers that give an ETA. Well
> guess what? Everybody is smart enough to make sure they get home 15
minutes
> late. All you have succeeded in doing is to add 15 minutes to all optional
> tasks. It's kind'a like the railroad that discovered a majority of
accidents
> involved the caboose being hit by another train. Their solution was to
remove
> all cabooses. Sounds like adding 15 minutes doesn't it?
> JJ Sinclair

I've heard several people claim that "getting back 15 minutes after minimun
time" is the new secret strategy to deal with the 15 minute time addition.
I don't understand why anyone would think that this is better than finishing
at any other value over minimum time. Could someone who believes that this
stragegy has a rational basis please explain it here?

Mike McNulty

[dennis brown]

Safer, in theory, seems to be the proper phrase.

We had this for one day at Hobbs regionals this year and 1000 ft min. for the
rest of the contest (sports class).

Theory is right. The practical aspect is that I spent more heads down time
looking at my distance versus altitude as I got inside the last 10 miles or so
of the finish cylinder. When we had a finish gate, we
knew where it was, we could see it. No heads down. We could still finish
well above worm disruption altitude. I see no benefit in the lowest finishes.
Anything lower than a hundred or so feet has no redeeming virtue.

Another anti-safety aspect is that finishing at 1000 ft at 2 miles from the
field means that you spend considerable time in the immediate vincinity
of the pattern slowing down and descending. More time means more
exposure. There is an optimum here. Too little time is bad - no options.
Too much time is bad - too much exposure to other lawn darts.

The last part is that there really needs to be a final aligning point,
regardless of the task called. Not all the classes should have the same
final turn, but all should be within a relatively small (45 degrees?) angle
from the field, located so as to put the glider into a downwind leg with
minimal manuvering.

I think the finish cylinder is an unexpected (to me, anyway) FAILURE in
capital letters.
Dennis

In article <7YO9b.481795$uu5.83242@sccrnsc04>, "Paul Remde" >
wrote:
>Hi,
>
>This discussion is very interesting.
>
>I applaud John for his efforts to make sailplane racing safer. I agree with
>the theory that if we just move the playing field up 500 feet, it will
>dramatically improve safety. It is my impression that is what he is trying
>to do.
>
>Why is that so bad?
>
>I also agree that I'd prefer to have fewer rules, but in this case I must
>lean toward safety over simplicity.
>
>I must admit that I am a pilot with 2 young children and I will vote for
>anything that will allow me to continue to fly contests with less reason to
>worry that I'll leave my kids without a father or my wife without her
>husband.
>
>I must also admit that I am a relatively inexperienced contest pilot -
>having flown in only 4 contests.
>
>Fly Safe,
>
>Paul Remde
>
>"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
>> I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness
>> of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should
>> it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information
>> will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap
>> it and at what level of competition. If the intent
>> is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't
>> object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm
>> against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical,
>> empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules
>> I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating
>> the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track
>> the bigger objectives.
>>
>> 9B
>>
>>
>> At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote:
>> >We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle
>> >doesn't pay much
>> >attention to rules anyway.
>> >
>> >John Cochrane wrote:
>> >> Fellow US pilots:
>> >>
>> >> This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few
>> >>days. It contains
>> >> a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read
>> >>it, think about
>> >> it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits
>> >>newer, less
>> >> experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the
>> >>top 5 national and
>> >> world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like
>> >>this idea for
>> >> your contests, you have to voice your opinion.
>> >>
>> >> Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have
>> >>to be above 500 feet
>> >> AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If
>> >>you don't make
>> >> this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance
>> >>points when you
>> >> land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line,
>> >>you may then
>> >> dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
>> >>
>> >> Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that
>> >>awful situation,
>> >> 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe
>> >>minus 50 feet.
>> >> You're passing over the last good field, and the last
>> >>chance to
>> >> properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for
>> >>wires, etc. From
>> >> here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in
>> >>to whatever you
>> >> find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal,
>> >>and land in this
>> >> good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points
>> >>and more call
>> >> you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not
>> >>fun. It's not
>> >> safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.
>> >>
>> >> The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life
>> >>decision. If you
>> >> don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get
>> >>speed points. Make
>> >> your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer
>> >>to squeak it in to
>> >> the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good
>> >>field 5 miles
>> >> out, do that. Forget the race.
>> >>
>> >> This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport
>> >>up 500 feet. The
>> >> race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport
>> >>located 500 feet
>> >> above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just
>> >>as fun, and just
>> >> as challenging.
>> >>
>> >> The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps
>> >>only sports
>> >> class. It will have to have substantial support from
>> >>pilots before it
>> >> makes it to nationals.
>> >>
>> >> For more details, including accident statistics, see
>> >>my article 'Safer
>> >> Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online
>> >>at my website,
>> >>
>> >> http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For
>> >>>_glider
>> >>
>> >> I will also keep updated versions of this message
>> >>on the website - I'm
>> >> sure to hear more objections that I can answer in
>> >>the FAQ
>> >>
>> >> FAQ:
>> >>
>> >> 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.
>> >>
>> >> We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling
>> >>the Mc 0 + 50
>> >> feet situation will still take lots of judgment.
>> >>
>> >> There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove
>> >>from 'pilot
>> >> judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive
>> >>advantage. We used
>> >> to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose
>> >>weight limits,
>> >> and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave
>> >>the question
>> >> whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment.
>> >>Now we ban
>> >> the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And
>> >>so forth.
>> >>
>> >> Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires
>> >>extensive
>> >> experience and judgment. While there is a good case
>> >>that national
>> >> level pilots can be expected to have this judgment,
>> >>this is not the
>> >> case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals,
>> >>which are
>> >> explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.
>> >>
>> >> 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the
>> >>fun away
>> >>
>> >> This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass.
>> >>The actual finish
>> >> can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.
>> >>
>> >> Many pilots think they will end up too high for a
>> >>proper low finish,
>> >> but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at
>> >>500 feet and 80
>> >> kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below
>> >>redline. It takes
>> >> more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try
>> >>it - I have.
>> >>
>> >> 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that
>> >>are even worse.
>> >>
>> >> a) Pulling up over the line.
>> >>
>> >> Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would
>> >>lead to pilots
>> >> racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line.
>> >>Good point.
>> >> That's why the proposal is now that you must be over
>> >>500 feet for the
>> >> whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated
>> >>like special
>> >> use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay
>> >>above 500 feet the
>> >> whole way.
>> >>
>> >> b) Traffic problems.
>> >>
>> >> Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside
>> >>the line will
>> >> interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as
>> >>this does not happen
>> >> now, and all we've done is move the whole business
>> >>up 500 feet. But
>> >> moving from a circle to a donut will further separate
>> >>finishers from
>> >> thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet
>> >>counting on
>> >> popping up at the last moment.
>> >>
>> >> c) Heads-down
>> >>
>> >> Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports
>> >>class has not
>> >> revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to
>> >>finish over the
>> >> airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or
>> >>so margin over the
>> >> donut.
>> >>
>> >> 4. This isn't the number one problem.
>> >>
>> >> It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are
>> >>still the number
>> >> one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low
>> >>energy finish are
>> >> in the US a distant third.
>> >>
>> >> Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking
>> >>the number one
>> >> problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs
>> >>are not the
>> >> number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and
>> >>look around, and
>> >> avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule
>> >>making. Assembly
>> >> errors are not the number one problem, yet we all
>> >>do checks and the
>> >> rules now require them. If we can improve the #99
>> >>problem, at no cost
>> >> to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a
>> >>little bit safer.
>> >>
>> >> 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but
>> >>losing all speed
>> >> points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on
>> >>a 5 minute penalty
>> >> or something?
>> >>
>> >> The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks
>> >>5 miles out when
>> >> the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole
>> >>point is to remove
>> >> 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points'
>> >>from the
>> >> mental calculation. The only way to do this is to
>> >>give essentially the
>> >> same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking
>> >>it in to the
>> >> airport.
>> >>
>> >> 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand
>> >>the heat, get out
>> >> of the kitchen.
>> >>
>> >> Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion.
>> >>If you think that
>> >> physical danger and an occasional fatality are important
>> >>to keep
>> >> soaring exiting, vote against this rule.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion
>> >>and has no
>> >> connection with the rules committee.
>> >>
>> >> John Cochrane (BB)
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[tango4]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> John Boy,
> Your *distance only* penalty is like shooting somebody for shoplifting.
>

Now that *is* a good idea!

Ian

[Pat Russell]

I need to think about the proposed new rule for a while. Then I
will decide how to vote.

I applaud John Cochrane's efforts to improve the US contest
rules. I admire his willingness to invite discussion in this
forum.

What I don't admire is:

1. Attacking John personally.

2. Complaining about other rules.

3. Complaining about the number of rules.

4. Brainless macho.

Let's stick to the issues. If your goal is persuasion, address
the points of the other guy's argument. If your goal is to be
annoying, don't change a thing.

"Ninety-eight percent of the posters in this group give the rest
a bad name." - Stephen Wright (originally about lawyers).

-Pat

[mm]

"Todd Pattist" > wrote in message
...
> "Michael McNulty" > wrote:
>
> >I've heard several people claim that "getting back 15 minutes after
minimun
> >time" is the new secret strategy to deal with the 15 minute time
addition.
> >I don't understand why anyone would think that this is better than
finishing
> >at any other value over minimum time. Could someone who believes that
this
> >stragegy has a rational basis please explain it here?
>
> I'd suggest you start a new thread on the 15 minute rule if
> you want a long answer. Although both the 500 ft rule and
> the 15 min. rule come from John Cochrane, they are vastly
> different. The 15 min. rule has clear consequences and
> mathematical certainty. Without the 15 min. rule, a slower
> pilot can beat a faster pilot by accurately flying exactly
> minimum time on course. The effects on pilot scores of the
> two alternative rules are known with certainty. Those who
> are against the new 15 min. rule typically are willing to
> let the slower pilot win in order to have simpler rules, or
> because they think that predicting arrival time at the
> finish should be worth some points.
>
> IMHO, the 500' rule is different because we don't *really*
> know the effect on safety. Some think it makes things
> safer, some don't, but no one can really prove either
> position. That's life - we live with uncertainty. Pilots
> will have to make up their own mind and vote their
> conscience
>
> The short answer to your question, however, is that you
> don't want to arrive home before MT, so 15 minutes is a
> reasonable guarantee that you won't undershoot MT, and you
> don't want to take too much risk of landing out or having
> the day die, so you don't want to fly too long. Other than
> that, I see no real advantage to "15 minutes" after MT as
> the goal. If the day is getting stronger, you'd want to fly
> longer. If it's getting weaker, you'd want to fly shorter.
> If you have a great speed because you hit some superb
> thermals perfectly, you'd probably be better off locking it
> in and heading home, provided you don't get home before MT.
>
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

You don't "want to arrive home before MT" either with or without the 15
minute scoring rule.

[Chris OCallaghan]

John,

I admire your commitment to safety, and before GPS I would have
objected strenously to the doughnut. But with modern navigational
aids, I no longer need the outward spiral of white crosses marking the
demise of so many miscalculated final glides to point the way home.
Indeed, perhaps we can finally dispose of their remains and their
memories. People around the gliderport were beginning to take notice
that we run an unsafe operation.

BTW, I question the rhetorical impact of "life and death decisions"
for 400 points. I would suggest that those 400 points are an incentive
to take a few extra turns before you light the reheat. As for landing
close to the airport, some of us scout the fields before we start
competing, just like some road racers like to walk the track before
they strap on 600 horsepower.

Alas, a doughnut at the end of a flight may be just what I need. Yet
another rule up the wazoo. I'm starting to wince as I sit down for my
postfligh brew.


As a side not, remember all, that a poll, while it measures the
opinions of its respondents, asks only the questions its authors want
answered. Measure its objectivity by how well it addresses what you
think is important. I don't expect to see a question asking if we
should abolish the rules committee and only establish an ad hoc
commmittee in the event that we have a clear, compelling reason to
change the rules.

[Michael Stringfellow]

Dennis observed pretty much what I did at Hobbs - finishing at a set height
away from the normal finish gate puts more workload on pilots during the
final glide. In most contests, you can see the finish gate and judge your
approach accordingly. For a "virtual" donut gate, you are relying on
instruments.

Then, after the finish, you are avoiding all the other classes whistling in
at red line while descending from your now excessive finish height.

Again, I'm not going to argue against a specific finish height, but
finishing 2 miles or more away from the normal finish gate is more difficult
in my experience and doesn't add safety, which was the stated goal.

And my final point - most flight computers won't give you a glide to the
outside of a cylinder, so you are relying on doing math in your head on the
last few miles home.

I can do final glide math in my head, than you very much, but it's harder
than following your flight computer. I fail to see how extra work load is
increasing safety.

Mike ASW 20 WA




"dennis brown" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> Safer, in theory, seems to be the proper phrase.
>
> We had this for one day at Hobbs regionals this year and 1000 ft min. for
the
> rest of the contest (sports class).
>
> Theory is right. The practical aspect is that I spent more heads down time
> looking at my distance versus altitude as I got inside the last 10 miles
or so
> of the finish cylinder. When we had a finish gate, we
> knew where it was, we could see it. No heads down. We could still finish
> well above worm disruption altitude. I see no benefit in the lowest
finishes.
> Anything lower than a hundred or so feet has no redeeming virtue.
>
> Another anti-safety aspect is that finishing at 1000 ft at 2 miles from
the
> field means that you spend considerable time in the immediate vincinity
> of the pattern slowing down and descending. More time means more
> exposure. There is an optimum here. Too little time is bad - no options.
> Too much time is bad - too much exposure to other lawn darts.
>
> The last part is that there really needs to be a final aligning point,
> regardless of the task called. Not all the classes should have the same
> final turn, but all should be within a relatively small (45 degrees?)
angle
> from the field, located so as to put the glider into a downwind leg with
> minimal manuvering.
>
> I think the finish cylinder is an unexpected (to me, anyway) FAILURE in
> capital letters.
> Dennis
>
> In article <7YO9b.481795$uu5.83242@sccrnsc04>, "Paul Remde"
>
> wrote:
> >Hi,
> >
> >This discussion is very interesting.
> >
> >I applaud John for his efforts to make sailplane racing safer. I agree
with
> >the theory that if we just move the playing field up 500 feet, it will
> >dramatically improve safety. It is my impression that is what he is
trying
> >to do.
> >
> >Why is that so bad?
> >
> >I also agree that I'd prefer to have fewer rules, but in this case I must
> >lean toward safety over simplicity.
> >
> >I must admit that I am a pilot with 2 young children and I will vote for
> >anything that will allow me to continue to fly contests with less reason
to
> >worry that I'll leave my kids without a father or my wife without her
> >husband.
> >
> >I must also admit that I am a relatively inexperienced contest pilot -
> >having flown in only 4 contests.
> >
> >Fly Safe,
> >
> >Paul Remde
> >
> >"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness
> >> of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should
> >> it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information
> >> will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap
> >> it and at what level of competition. If the intent
> >> is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't
> >> object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm
> >> against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical,
> >> empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules
> >> I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating
> >> the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track
> >> the bigger objectives.
> >>
> >> 9B
> >>
> >>
> >> At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote:
> >> >We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle
> >> >doesn't pay much
> >> >attention to rules anyway.
> >> >
> >> >John Cochrane wrote:
> >> >> Fellow US pilots:
> >> >>
> >> >> This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few
> >> >>days. It contains
> >> >> a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read
> >> >>it, think about
> >> >> it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits
> >> >>newer, less
> >> >> experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the
> >> >>top 5 national and
> >> >> world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like
> >> >>this idea for
> >> >> your contests, you have to voice your opinion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have
> >> >>to be above 500 feet
> >> >> AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If
> >> >>you don't make
> >> >> this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance
> >> >>points when you
> >> >> land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line,
> >> >>you may then
> >> >> dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
> >> >>
> >> >> Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that
> >> >>awful situation,
> >> >> 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe
> >> >>minus 50 feet.
> >> >> You're passing over the last good field, and the last
> >> >>chance to
> >> >> properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for
> >> >>wires, etc. From
> >> >> here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in
> >> >>to whatever you
> >> >> find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal,
> >> >>and land in this
> >> >> good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points
> >> >>and more call
> >> >> you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not
> >> >>fun. It's not
> >> >> safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.
> >> >>
> >> >> The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life
> >> >>decision. If you
> >> >> don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get
> >> >>speed points. Make
> >> >> your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer
> >> >>to squeak it in to
> >> >> the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good
> >> >>field 5 miles
> >> >> out, do that. Forget the race.
> >> >>
> >> >> This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport
> >> >>up 500 feet. The
> >> >> race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport
> >> >>located 500 feet
> >> >> above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just
> >> >>as fun, and just
> >> >> as challenging.
> >> >>
> >> >> The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps
> >> >>only sports
> >> >> class. It will have to have substantial support from
> >> >>pilots before it
> >> >> makes it to nationals.
> >> >>
> >> >> For more details, including accident statistics, see
> >> >>my article 'Safer
> >> >> Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online
> >> >>at my website,
> >> >>
> >> >> http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john.cochrane/research/Papers/#For
> >> >>>_glider
> >> >>
> >> >> I will also keep updated versions of this message
> >> >>on the website - I'm
> >> >> sure to hear more objections that I can answer in
> >> >>the FAQ
> >> >>
> >> >> FAQ:
> >> >>
> >> >> 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.
> >> >>
> >> >> We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling
> >> >>the Mc 0 + 50
> >> >> feet situation will still take lots of judgment.
> >> >>
> >> >> There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove
> >> >>from 'pilot
> >> >> judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive
> >> >>advantage. We used
> >> >> to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose
> >> >>weight limits,
> >> >> and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave
> >> >>the question
> >> >> whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment.
> >> >>Now we ban
> >> >> the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And
> >> >>so forth.
> >> >>
> >> >> Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires
> >> >>extensive
> >> >> experience and judgment. While there is a good case
> >> >>that national
> >> >> level pilots can be expected to have this judgment,
> >> >>this is not the
> >> >> case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals,
> >> >>which are
> >> >> explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.
> >> >>
> >> >> 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the
> >> >>fun away
> >> >>
> >> >> This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass.
> >> >>The actual finish
> >> >> can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.
> >> >>
> >> >> Many pilots think they will end up too high for a
> >> >>proper low finish,
> >> >> but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at
> >> >>500 feet and 80
> >> >> kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below
> >> >>redline. It takes
> >> >> more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try
> >> >>it - I have.
> >> >>
> >> >> 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that
> >> >>are even worse.
> >> >>
> >> >> a) Pulling up over the line.
> >> >>
> >> >> Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would
> >> >>lead to pilots
> >> >> racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line.
> >> >>Good point.
> >> >> That's why the proposal is now that you must be over
> >> >>500 feet for the
> >> >> whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated
> >> >>like special
> >> >> use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay
> >> >>above 500 feet the
> >> >> whole way.
> >> >>
> >> >> b) Traffic problems.
> >> >>
> >> >> Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside
> >> >>the line will
> >> >> interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as
> >> >>this does not happen
> >> >> now, and all we've done is move the whole business
> >> >>up 500 feet. But
> >> >> moving from a circle to a donut will further separate
> >> >>finishers from
> >> >> thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet
> >> >>counting on
> >> >> popping up at the last moment.
> >> >>
> >> >> c) Heads-down
> >> >>
> >> >> Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports
> >> >>class has not
> >> >> revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to
> >> >>finish over the
> >> >> airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or
> >> >>so margin over the
> >> >> donut.
> >> >>
> >> >> 4. This isn't the number one problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are
> >> >>still the number
> >> >> one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low
> >> >>energy finish are
> >> >> in the US a distant third.
> >> >>
> >> >> Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking
> >> >>the number one
> >> >> problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs
> >> >>are not the
> >> >> number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and
> >> >>look around, and
> >> >> avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule
> >> >>making. Assembly
> >> >> errors are not the number one problem, yet we all
> >> >>do checks and the
> >> >> rules now require them. If we can improve the #99
> >> >>problem, at no cost
> >> >> to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a
> >> >>little bit safer.
> >> >>
> >> >> 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but
> >> >>losing all speed
> >> >> points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on
> >> >>a 5 minute penalty
> >> >> or something?
> >> >>
> >> >> The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks
> >> >>5 miles out when
> >> >> the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole
> >> >>point is to remove
> >> >> 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points'
> >> >>from the
> >> >> mental calculation. The only way to do this is to
> >> >>give essentially the
> >> >> same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking
> >> >>it in to the
> >> >> airport.
> >> >>
> >> >> 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand
> >> >>the heat, get out
> >> >> of the kitchen.
> >> >>
> >> >> Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion.
> >> >>If you think that
> >> >> physical danger and an occasional fatality are important
> >> >>to keep
> >> >> soaring exiting, vote against this rule.
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion
> >> >>and has no
> >> >> connection with the rules committee.
> >> >>
> >> >> John Cochrane (BB)
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >

[303pilot]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
>
> "John Cochrane" > wrote...
> > Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
> > AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
> > this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
> > land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
> > dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
> > ...
> > The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you
> > don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make
> > your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to
> > the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles
> > out, do that. Forget the race.
>
> I hate to sound like one of those libertarians, but I have to say this
proposed
> rule goes too far.

http://www.lp.org/quiz/ take the World's Smallest Political Quiz--you may be
one! :-)
Back on topic....

As a new competitor (and an old libertarian), John's statement that the rule
is really targeted at newer competitors is one I don't understand. Newer,
less experienced competitors are free under the current rules to arrive at
the finish near cloudbase if they want to. As a new competitor, I
understand that I don't have the experience to be squeeking in final glides
in contests for the points. Hell, I'm just trying to get from the top of
the bottom quartile into the bottom of the third quartile. My final glide
plan is very conservative, more so than what John's proposal calls for.
That's what I'll do regardless of what the rules say I _may_ do--because I
know what I _can_ do comfortably.

Current rules allow competitors to put themselves into positions where the
pucker factor can get extreme. Current rules do not require competitors to
put themselves in those positions. I believe my more conservative final
glide plan is the right thing for me to do, but I don't think that gives me
the right to require others to fly more conservatively.

Brent

[Tim Hanke]

(John Cochrane) wrote in message >...
> Fellow US pilots:
>
> This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains
> a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about
> it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less
> experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and
> world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for
> your contests, you have to voice your opinion.
>
> Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
> AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
> this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
> land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
> dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
> > John Cochrane (BB)

Why are we constantly adding more rules to competition flying? It is
becoming more and more complicated. We cannot just add more and more
rules to deal with people's decision making all the time. Soaring is a
sport that requires decision-making and that is one of the big
challenges to the sport. I am opposed to more and more rules that
continue to add to the complexity of the sport.

Tim Hanke
Libelle 201B "H1"
Saratoga Springs, New York

[JJ Sinclair]

MM wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could someone who believes that
>this
>> >stragegy has a rational basis please explain it here?

MM,
The 15 minute rule adds 15 minutes to all competitors times. Compare two
flights where pilot A finishes at the minimum time and pilot B finishes 15
minutes later. Lets say both pilots have the same speed (distance flown devided
by their time) now add 15 minutes to each pilots time. You will see that adding
15 minutes to the pilot that already flew over by 15 minutes will be hurt LESS
than the pilot who finished right on time. The pilot who flew about 15 minutes
over will get about 10 to 12 more points with the new system. One other
troubling little problem is, when the speeds are close, the SLOWER pilot can
get more points. See Region 11, south, Avenal, day 1, Open, JJ gete 1000 points
for flying 51.72 and Ed Salkeld gets 999 points for flying 52.11. Same thing on
day 3 and day 4. Anomalies like this undermine confidence in the scoring
system.

This tweaking of the scoring system hasn't achieved the stated purpose of
giving the guy without a fancy new computer a better chance, because everybody
just flies about 15 minutes over when possible. Note, the time spent flying
over the minimum time must be spent productively, i.e. making more miles.
JJ Sinclair

[HL Falbaum]

Someone, please enlighten me!

What is the difference between a 2+30 task call plus 15 min, and a 2+45 task
call?
I understand that it is scoring suicide to arrive early in either case, and
that, given consistent flying conditions, it is best to arrive 'on time'. So
why not just call a 2+45 task? Or call a 2+30 task if that is what the day
warrants.

I do like the finish ring idea if there is a 'lead-in' sector for mixed
tasks (i.e. --assigned task for 15 m and MAT for Sports). gives time for an
orderly procession of landings at the airport. I think the high speed finish
is spectacular and fun, but I am more afraid of a 'last-second' landout then
a loss of a few points.

Hartley Falbaum

"Tim Hanke" > wrote in message
m...
> (John Cochrane) wrote in message
>...
> > Fellow US pilots:
> >
> > This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains
> > a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about
> > it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less
> > experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and
> > world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for
> > your contests, you have to voice your opinion.
> >
> > Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
> > AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
> > this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
> > land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
> > dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
> > > John Cochrane (BB)
>
> Why are we constantly adding more rules to competition flying? It is
> becoming more and more complicated. We cannot just add more and more
> rules to deal with people's decision making all the time. Soaring is a
> sport that requires decision-making and that is one of the big
> challenges to the sport. I am opposed to more and more rules that
> continue to add to the complexity of the sport.
>
> Tim Hanke
> Libelle 201B "H1"
> Saratoga Springs, New York

[Kirk Stant]

Sorry John, I don't like it. It is my job as the pilot in command to
not jeopardize my safety or the safety of people and things on the
ground (or in the air, for that matter). Just because I'm final
gliding in a race does not excuse me from that responsibility.

And anyone who doesn't fly that way is going to ignore any "safety"
rule, anyway. I can just see the stall/spin accidents at the finish
line/cylinder/gate as Joe Bagadonuts in his still-fully-ballasted
(forgot to dump, of course) DGLSASW-69 desperately pulls up to get
over the 500' penalty wall, and finds out what it looks like to be
pointing straight down at 400 ft and 40 knots. Yee Haa - that'll have
em cheering in the cheap seats!

As an individual, if you are convinced by John's arguments, then by
all means use his guidelines for finishing - it probably won't hurt
your score one little bit, and might even help.

But a rule is not the answer to stupidity.

BTW, a Garmin GPS 3 Pilot can be setup to take you to exactly 501 ft 1
mile from the finish, or whatever point in space you want, around
multiple turnpoints - with an "ILS glideslipe" display to guide you
all the way. Do you really want to be staring at a display at that
point in the flight? Not me!

Lets go back to long and relatively low start gates, small turn
cylinders, and geographically significant finish gates.

In an AST, of course.

Kirk Stant
66

[Michael McNulty]

"JJ Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> MM wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Could someone who believes that
> >this
> >> >stragegy has a rational basis please explain it here?
>
> MM,
> The 15 minute rule adds 15 minutes to all competitors times. Compare two
> flights where pilot A finishes at the minimum time and pilot B finishes 15
> minutes later. Lets say both pilots have the same speed (distance flown
devided
> by their time) now add 15 minutes to each pilots time. You will see that
adding
> 15 minutes to the pilot that already flew over by 15 minutes will be hurt
LESS
> than the pilot who finished right on time. The pilot who flew about 15
minutes
> over will get about 10 to 12 more points with the new system. One other
> troubling little problem is, when the speeds are close, the SLOWER pilot
can
> get more points. See Region 11, south, Avenal, day 1, Open, JJ gete 1000
points
> for flying 51.72 and Ed Salkeld gets 999 points for flying 52.11. Same
thing on
> day 3 and day 4. Anomalies like this undermine confidence in the scoring
> system.
>
> This tweaking of the scoring system hasn't achieved the stated purpose of
> giving the guy without a fancy new computer a better chance, because
everybody
> just flies about 15 minutes over when possible. Note, the time spent
flying
> over the minimum time must be spent productively, i.e. making more miles.
> JJ Sinclair

Okay, so then why not fly 30 minutes over the minimun time and so get an
"hurt" even less. Why would someone think that flying 15 minutes over the
minimum time was the ideal way to respond to the 15 minute rule?

[BPattonsoa]

Why are we constantly adding more rules to competition flying? It is
becoming more and more complicated. We cannot just add more and more
rules to deal with people's decision making all the time. Soaring is a
sport that requires decision-making and that is one of the big
challenges to the sport. I am opposed to more and more rules that
continue to add to the complexity of the sport.

Tim Hanke
Libelle 201B "H1"
Saratoga Springs, New York


Tim, you have said it all. Moffett said that you need to make a decision every
fifteen seconds, and that was without computers. Those were flight decisions,
now we must make a decision every fifteen seconds and spend the other fourteen
programming our flight computers.

Bruce Patton
96S

[Brian Case]

Ok, this rule may address one senario, but may create another one that
is just as bad or worse.


Let say I am 3 miles out a 700 feet in calm air. Since where i fly we
have a 2 mile long runway and the finish cyilnder is typically
centered on the center of the runway the end of the runway is only 2
miles away. However I just miss the 500 foot finish at 2 miles out
(or am not sure if I hit it) At that point I hit a weak thermal (Which
can happen quite often at low altitudes) I am only 400 ft, but if I
can work this thermal to gain only 100 feet it is worth the 400 point
differnence between being scored only distance as opposed to speed.
(that is if I understand the rules correctly) Now you have a glider
thermalling between 400-600 feet AGL with other gliders finishing at
the 500ft level.
I think this is a much more enticing carrot for the competitive pilot
than trying to decide wheather or not to land in a field 2 miles short
of the finish. In my senero the choice is thermal at low altitude and
risk a mid air with other finishing gliders which most experinced
pilots might be willing to try espeically for just 100 or 50 ft gain
of altitude. In the original senerio the risk is if I don't make the
airport, I may damage an aircraft landing short and be out of the
contest all together as well as for the rest of the season. I think
the current rules are acutally safer than the propose rule for this
reason, as the consequences of a bad decision are much worse.

Brian Case
CFIIG/ASEL

[JJ Sinclair]

Earlier Mike wrote>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Okay, so then why not fly 30 minutes over the minimun time and so get an
>"hurt" even less. Why would someone think that flying 15 minutes over the
>minimum time was the ideal way to respond to the 15 minute rule?
>

Mike,
The affect of John's +15 minute rule is to make a new minimum time of 3:15 (in
my example), so now it is advantageous to be as close as possible to the new
minimum time. Flying as close as you can to the minimum time will take maximum
advantage of your "free" altitude, that you had at the start gate.
JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

In article >,
says...
> Let say I am 3 miles out a 700 feet in calm air. Since where i fly we
> have a 2 mile long runway and the finish cyilnder is typically
> centered on the center of the runway the end of the runway is only 2
> miles away. However I just miss the 500 foot finish at 2 miles out
> (or am not sure if I hit it) At that point I hit a weak thermal (Which
> can happen quite often at low altitudes) I am only 400 ft, but if I
> can work this thermal to gain only 100 feet it is worth the 400 point
> differnence between being scored only distance as opposed to speed.
> (that is if I understand the rules correctly) Now you have a glider
> thermalling between 400-600 feet AGL with other gliders finishing at
> the 500ft level.

As I understand the rule, it's not just a matter of popping above the
500' agl floor of the cylinder. You'd have to thermal up, go back to
the outside of the 2 mile cylinder, and fly from there to the 1 mile
cylinder while staying above 500' agl. In the the situation you
describe, would you still be likely to try that weak thermal, or would
you just go ahead and land?

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Pat Russell]

We are all free to choose our own tactics, but I disagree with
yours.

Unless you're very good at predicting the future, the best time
to finish is exactly at MT, with or without the 15-minute rule.

[JJ Sinclair]

Earlier, Pat wrote,>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>Unless you're very good at predicting the future, the best time
>to finish is exactly at MT, with or without the 15-minute rule.
>

How can you say that, Pat? The scoring program is going to give out 10 to 12
more points to the guys that fly productively, 15 minutes over the minimum. If
I'm finding good lift and trucking along, don't you think I'm going to shoot to
be 15 minutes over the minimum time? Don't you think everybody will do the
same? Now it must be productive miles I'm logging, but I don't really know how
productive I've been until I see the score sheet, now do I?
JJ Sinclair

[Pat Russell]

I said:
>>Unless you're very good at predicting the future,...

Then you said:
>Now it must be productive miles I'm logging, but I don't really know how
>productive I've been until I see the score sheet, now do I?

That's what I meant about predicting the future.

If your average speed is going up, and you can be sure that it
will continue to do so, then of course it is wise to stay out
longer.

-Pat

[Kilo Charlie]

> I suggest that glider pilots are, as a group, no where near as skilled as
> those pilots and to permit glider pilots to execute down to the deck high
> speed finishes at an airport does seem imprudent. The simple fact is we
> legislate good judgment all over the place and some glider pilots do not
> exercise good judgment.
>
> Ivan

Hmmmm....I see no Ivan Kahn on the US Pilot Ranking List which means either
you have never raced or maybe you're simply not giving us your real name.
Sounds like you must know a lot about the skill level of racing pilots
though. Too bad you won't be allowed to vote in the poll.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Michael McNulty]

"Pat Russell" > wrote in message
...
> We are all free to choose our own tactics, but I disagree with
> yours.
>
> Unless you're very good at predicting the future, the best time
> to finish is exactly at MT, with or without the 15-minute rule.
>
>
You also must be very good at predicting the future to landing at "exactly
MT"

[chris]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message news:<nEqab.42131$n94.18608@fed1read04>...
> > I suggest that glider pilots are, as a group, no where near as skilled as
> > those pilots and to permit glider pilots to execute down to the deck high
> > speed finishes at an airport does seem imprudent. The simple fact is we
> > legislate good judgment all over the place and some glider pilots do not
> > exercise good judgment.
> >
> > Ivan
>
> Hmmmm....I see no Ivan Kahn on the US Pilot Ranking List which means either
> you have never raced or maybe you're simply not giving us your real name.
> Sounds like you must know a lot about the skill level of racing pilots
> though. Too bad you won't be allowed to vote in the poll.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix

It is his real name and I would not totally dismiss somebody's opinion
just because they are not on the ranking list.
One big reason for this is constest pilots need to think about making
the rules appeal to new contest pilots also.
Similar to the [John Cocharan's?] suggestion that rules should work
for all pilots - not just the most experience, it should be a fun and
safe contest for even the guy who is flying his first race.

Chris Ruf
my real name and yes you will find it Low on the ranking list.

[BMacLean]

Dumbing down competition for people who don't know how to do it but want to
participate with everyone else is not fair to the pilots who have worked
many years to learn the craft. It's supposed to be hard!


"chris" > wrote in message
m...
> "Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:<nEqab.42131$n94.18608@fed1read04>...
> > > I suggest that glider pilots are, as a group, no where near as skilled
as
> > > those pilots and to permit glider pilots to execute down to the deck
high
> > > speed finishes at an airport does seem imprudent. The simple fact is
we
> > > legislate good judgment all over the place and some glider pilots do
not
> > > exercise good judgment.
> > >
> > > Ivan
> >
> > Hmmmm....I see no Ivan Kahn on the US Pilot Ranking List which means
either
> > you have never raced or maybe you're simply not giving us your real
name.
> > Sounds like you must know a lot about the skill level of racing pilots
> > though. Too bad you won't be allowed to vote in the poll.
> >
> > Casey Lenox
> > KC
> > Phoenix
>
> It is his real name and I would not totally dismiss somebody's opinion
> just because they are not on the ranking list.
> One big reason for this is constest pilots need to think about making
> the rules appeal to new contest pilots also.
> Similar to the [John Cocharan's?] suggestion that rules should work
> for all pilots - not just the most experience, it should be a fun and
> safe contest for even the guy who is flying his first race.
>
> Chris Ruf
> my real name and yes you will find it Low on the ranking list.

[Kilo Charlie]

"BMacLean" > wrote in message
...
> Dumbing down competition for people who don't know how to do it but want
to
> participate with everyone else is not fair to the pilots who have worked
> many years to learn the craft. It's supposed to be hard!

Could not have stated it more perfectly Barb.

Casey

[Jonathan Gere]

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...

> As I understand the rule, it's not just a matter of popping above the
> 500' agl floor of the cylinder. You'd have to thermal up, go back to
> the outside of the 2 mile cylinder, and fly from there to the 1 mile
> cylinder while staying above 500' agl. In the the situation you
> describe, would you still be likely to try that weak thermal, or would
> you just go ahead and land?

Bad rules proposal!

As they do out on course, pilots will stop trying to get somewhere,
and start trying to get back up to avoid losing their speed points at
some personally determined altitude.

That includes the pilots that could be making a safe, routine rolling
finish for speed points under the present rules!

Some pilots will fly safely whatever the rules. Other pilots will
break their gliders trying to get home just for the convenience (and
safety) of avoiding a field landing. If you think that pilots will
stop trying to finish and outland safely if they have no shot at
getting points, you haven't thought much about the long history of
guest pilots breaking their gliders at contests.

Jonathan Gere

[Brian Case]

Personally, I would go ahead and land. Most likely it would only mean
the difference between last place and next to last place for me
anyway.

No matter where you put the limit, the greater the point penalty for
missing it the more likely the competitive pilots might be to try and
climb back up to it. Especially since if they are only going to get
distance points if they don't make it work they have nearly all day to
try to get back up to the finish, since their speed won't count unless
the do make it to the finish.


Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

Eric Greenwell > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> says...
> > Let say I am 3 miles out a 700 feet in calm air. Since where i fly we
> > have a 2 mile long runway and the finish cyilnder is typically
> > centered on the center of the runway the end of the runway is only 2
> > miles away. However I just miss the 500 foot finish at 2 miles out
> > (or am not sure if I hit it) At that point I hit a weak thermal (Which
> > can happen quite often at low altitudes) I am only 400 ft, but if I
> > can work this thermal to gain only 100 feet it is worth the 400 point
> > differnence between being scored only distance as opposed to speed.
> > (that is if I understand the rules correctly) Now you have a glider
> > thermalling between 400-600 feet AGL with other gliders finishing at
> > the 500ft level.
>
> As I understand the rule, it's not just a matter of popping above the
> 500' agl floor of the cylinder. You'd have to thermal up, go back to
> the outside of the 2 mile cylinder, and fly from there to the 1 mile
> cylinder while staying above 500' agl. In the the situation you
> describe, would you still be likely to try that weak thermal, or would
> you just go ahead and land?

[chris]

"BMacLean" > wrote in message >...
> Dumbing down competition for people who don't know how to do it but want to
> participate with everyone else is not fair to the pilots who have worked
> many years to learn the craft. It's supposed to be hard!
>
I agree it is supposed to be hard, but do not confuse unnecessarily
dangerous for hard.

Chris

[Todd Smith]

John,

I would support a rule that was a lot simpler.
I just worked through the "donut" part of the rule and
that is not good.

It seems that finish at 500 ft at 1 mile would work just
as well and be much more simple.

I also would prefer 1000 ft to 500 ft. 500 ft is still pretty low.

Todd Smith
"3S"

[Marc Ramsey]

"Todd Smith" > wrote...
> It seems that finish at 500 ft at 1 mile would work just
> as well and be much more simple.

It's worked very well at the contests I've participated in that used it. After
pulling up, I'll have plenty of time to tidy up the cockpit, listen on the gate
frequency for other gliders finishing, listen on the airport frequency for
traffic, double check that the water is gone, get the gear down, make a few 360s
for a visual check of the pattern, and make a nice leisurely landing. All
without feeling like I'm giving up a huge number of points to the speed racers.

> I also would prefer 1000 ft to 500 ft. 500 ft is still pretty low.

Don't go there, you'll only start some people frothing at the mouth!

Seriously, 500 feet is actually excessive at typical finishing speeds (80+
knots). If you're going slower, an abbreviated pattern or a straight-in should
still be quite doable. But, there's nothing that says you have to cut your
finishes that close. I don't...

Marc

[Gary Ittner]

BMacLean wrote:
>
> Dumbing down competition for people who don't know how to do it but want to
> participate with everyone else is not fair to the pilots who have worked
> many years to learn the craft. It's supposed to be hard!


I just thought I'd provide the complete movie quote for those who don't
recognize where it comes from:

"It's supposed to be hard! If it were easy, everyone would do it. It's
the 'hard' that makes it great."
-Tom Hanks "A League of Their Own" Columbia/Tristar 1992


p7 unit

[Tom Seim]

Andy Blackburn > wrote in message >...
> I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.
>
> If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make it
> to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
> A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my ship
> requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
> a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
> climb even higher if you want any buffer.
>
> I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
> adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
> for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
> and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold altitude.
> A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
> will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
> making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide to
> the inner part of the donut.
>
> The simple point here is that all of this climbing
> and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
> rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
> is because the ground forces the issue later with the
> extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
> separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
> goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
> separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
> for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
> increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
> assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
> climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
> the same.

I don't see how this is any different; we have to see and avoid other
sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the time that we have
come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally anywhere on
course, including directly over turn points. And even if you don't
have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally and
high-speed gliders in-bound to finish.

I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport
except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious
crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum
altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some
competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the
others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy
function and accept the result.

[Andy Blackburn]

It is different Tom.

Yes, there are always climbing and cruising sailplanes
in the mix. The difference is that the closer you are
to the finish the more likely it is that gliders will
be converging on each other (horizontally AND vertically)
and the more likely it is that the cruising sailplanes
will be doing something approaching redline rather
than 75-100 knots.

The logic for the difference is simple. If you know
you can't make it home you are likely to be making
outlanding preparations somewhere around 700-1,200
feet - depending on terrain and availability of landable
fields. In the 'final glide gone bad' scenario you
would come to this decision 5-10 miles out and either
find a thermal or land (at least most pilots I know
will - unless they're flying over a terrain so benign
that it's like one big putting green). At this distance
the higher speed traffic is well higher and hasn't
started to burn off the extra altitude they are carrying
as a buffer. The climbing glider won't likely climb
up to them anyway unless it finds a real corker of
a thermal (somewhat unlikely under 'low save' circumstances).
The reason you don't often find gliders making low
saves at less than 5 miles out today is that they've
all landed out by then or made it home - put another
way not many pilots set up for a landout from 500'.

Under the proposed rule you can find yourself at 2.5
miles from home and 700' AGL with not enough altitude
for a speed finish, but enough altitude to get home.
What would you do in this situation? EXACTLY - you
will hunt around the edge of the donut for lift. aHopefully,
as you get lower you drift towards the airport to keep
the landing option open (not sure if the rule allows
for catching a thermal below 500' right over the airport,
climbing up to enough height to go out to 2 miles and
back above 500'). I suppose we could make a rule that
if you EVER get below 500' AGL in a flight you're done,
but it would probably only be enforceable in the flatlands
of Kansas.

So there you are climbing up at 2.5 miles out, trying
to get enough altitude to make it to the inside edge
of the donut at 500'. Say you'll accept a Mc=2 glide.
Well at 2 miles the difference between a Mc=2 glide
and a Mc=6 glide is 150'. So all the guys coming steaming
home - now at close to redline will be more or less
at your altitude. Under the current rules this is unlikely
to happen at less than 6 miles out - where the differential
altitude margin is three times as great and the speed
differentials are somewhat lower.

If you want some really interesting and action-packed
finishes with a few poor pilots stuck outside the donut
- able to glide to the airport but unable to finish
for speed points - floating around at low altitude
and mixing it up with gliders at redline - all within
view of spectators - then this is your best shot.

Wait, I forgot the best part! The guys at redline will
have their heads in the cockpit, looking at their glide
computers, because 500' up on a two mile radius has
no visual reference to fly against.

Democracy is a great thing, but without goodwill towards
others it offers the potential for 51% to inflict pain
on 49%. If you want to finish at 500' go ahead - you
don't need a rule for it and it costs you only a minute
or so. I personally carry 1,000' of extra until I'm
5-7 miles out.

While I believe it is 100% well intentioned, I don't
think this proposal actually helps and it has some
very funky potential side effects.

Vote away!

9B

At 20:30 20 September 2003, Tom Seim wrote:
>Andy Blackburn wrote in message news:...
>> I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.
>>
>> If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make
>>it
>> to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
>> A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my
>>ship
>> requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
>> a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
>> climb even higher if you want any buffer.
>>
>> I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
>> adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
>> for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
>> and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold
>>altitude.
>> A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
>> will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
>> making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide
>>to
>> the inner part of the donut.
>>
>> The simple point here is that all of this climbing
>> and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
>> rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
>> is because the ground forces the issue later with
>>the
>> extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
>> separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
>> goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
>> separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
>> for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
>> increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
>> assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
>> climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
>> the same.
>
>I don't see how this is any different; we have to see
>and avoid other
>sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the
>time that we have
>come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally
>anywhere on
>course, including directly over turn points. And even
>if you don't
>have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally
>and
>high-speed gliders in-bound to finish.
>
>I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing
>to the sport
>except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some
>very anxious
>crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs
>for minimum
>altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may
>have some
>competitive edge because they are willing to push it
>lower than the
>others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote,
>let democracy
>function and accept the result.
>

[Kilo Charlie]

Tom-

However well intentioned I don't think that most pilots realize what a
pandoras box the "safety" issue is. Put bluntly, if the SRA and SSA become
focused upon safety issues in this sport it is a death sentence in and of
itself and I for one will no longer be racing in contests sanctioned by
these organizations.

When people become so parental that they "know" what is best for the rest of
society they have lost all perspective of what life and freedom are about.
Do you mean to tell mean that you honestly think most pilots are incapable
of making reasonable judgements? If so I'd say that you are a brave man for
even flying within the same area with these renegades. If these rules pass
and become the status quo you will be left with a system that is paralyzed
by its very existence i.e. there is no perfectly safe way to race a glider.
This will split the SSA resulting in no winners. Please think about this
before you vote.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Kirk Stant]

> I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport
> except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious
> crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum
> altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some
> competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the
> others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy
> function and accept the result.

Tom, that is like saying that in NASCAR (or F1, or CART, or drag
racing) fast laps add nothing to the sport except for some broken cars
(and drivers!). WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RACING! I, for one, love the
rush of a low, fast finish at the end of a nicely judged 60 mile final
glide - that's one of the reasons I race! Is there more risk than
just entering the pattern at 800 feet with all the 2-33s? Probably
(although my bet is the stats don't support that conclusion).

If you feel racing is too dangerous, then by all means don't do it,
but please don't ruin if for those of us who like it the way it is -
challenging, exciting, beautiful to watch, and yes, a little risky!

It used to be simple - CD set a task, and fastest glider around wins.
Now, you don't know how far everyone is flying, and going faster
doesn't even mean you are going to win - but by God you will do it
"safely"!

Maybe it's time to set up a separate racing series for those of us who
prefer to race than go on organized cross-countries in gaggles - Hell,
it shouldn't take too long for us to kill ourselves off with our low
finishes and pinpoint turnpoints, then everybody can go back to TATs
with 20 mile areas, 15 extra minutes and 1000 ft high speed limited
finishes.

YAWN

Kirk Stant

[Kilo Charlie]

> Maybe it's time to set up a separate racing series for those of us who
> prefer to race than go on organized cross-countries in gaggles - Hell,
> it shouldn't take too long for us to kill ourselves off with our low
> finishes and pinpoint turnpoints, then everybody can go back to TATs
> with 20 mile areas, 15 extra minutes and 1000 ft high speed limited
> finishes.

Kirk...you forgot the handwringing and moaning about what they must be
forgetting to add to the list of rules re safety.....you know the
motto....."you can never be safe enough!". At least they'll have a good
model with John Danforth leading the way.

Now what was that name we were considering for the new organization?!

Casey

[Tom Seim]

Kirk,

I love reading your posts because we obviously have such different
views. Your point about NASCAR is amusing because it is hard to find a
more intrusive organization that micromanages their sport. NASCAR is
EXTREMELY safety concious that monitors not only the detailed design
of the car (when was the last time they actually raced "stock cars"?),
but every minute aspect of race operation. If there is a fatality,
such as Earnhardt's, they take action to prevent it from happening
again:

Safety has become a paramount concern this year in NASCAR. Restrictor
plates, throttle limiters and soft walls have all been hot topics in
an effort to find an answer to a single question, "What else can be
done to limit driver injury"?

Should NASCAR mandate the HANS® Device?
By Frank Ryan
October 31, 2000
AutoRacing1.com

I don't think that soaring can accomodate this level of governence.
After all, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsers and a national
TV audience. But to compare our sport to NASCAR on just one aspect
presents a distorted picture.

I agree that there is nothing to compare with a high-speed contest
finish for the adreneline junky. The problem is that most tasks aren't
assigned turnpoints, resulting in gliders approaching the finish line
from all directions. Consequently you can be mixing slow speed gliders
in the pattern (at low altitude) with high-speed finishing gliders.

It IS sad to see this part of the sport go (along with the start line)
since this is the only spectator part of the contest.

Tom

[BMacLean]

They could drive slower, have mandatory car separation and have to use
blinkers to pass. And to make horse racing safer, they could stop putting
those little men on the horses backs. But to be really safe, they just
shouldn't race!

"Tom Seim" > wrote in message
om...
> Kirk,
>
> I love reading your posts because we obviously have such different
> views. Your point about NASCAR is amusing because it is hard to find a
> more intrusive organization that micromanages their sport. NASCAR is
> EXTREMELY safety concious that monitors not only the detailed design
> of the car (when was the last time they actually raced "stock cars"?),
> but every minute aspect of race operation. If there is a fatality,
> such as Earnhardt's, they take action to prevent it from happening
> again:
>
> Safety has become a paramount concern this year in NASCAR. Restrictor
> plates, throttle limiters and soft walls have all been hot topics in
> an effort to find an answer to a single question, "What else can be
> done to limit driver injury"?
>
> Should NASCAR mandate the HANS® Device?
> By Frank Ryan
> October 31, 2000
> AutoRacing1.com
>
> I don't think that soaring can accomodate this level of governence.
> After all, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsers and a national
> TV audience. But to compare our sport to NASCAR on just one aspect
> presents a distorted picture.
>
> I agree that there is nothing to compare with a high-speed contest
> finish for the adreneline junky. The problem is that most tasks aren't
> assigned turnpoints, resulting in gliders approaching the finish line
> from all directions. Consequently you can be mixing slow speed gliders
> in the pattern (at low altitude) with high-speed finishing gliders.
>
> It IS sad to see this part of the sport go (along with the start line)
> since this is the only spectator part of the contest.
>
> Tom

[Eric Greenwell]

I now think I understand your concerns, and I'm becoming undecided
now. Must mull harder...

In article >,
says...
> I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.
>
> If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make it
> to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
> A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my ship
> requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
> a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
> climb even higher if you want any buffer.
>
> I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
> adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
> for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
> and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold altitude.
> A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
> will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
> making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide to
> the inner part of the donut.
>
> The simple point here is that all of this climbing
> and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
> rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
> is because the ground forces the issue later with the
> extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
> separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
> goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
> separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
> for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
> increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
> assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
> climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
> the same.
>
>

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

[Michael Stringfellow]

Andy has it exactly right.

Yesterday, on the last leg of an ASA 150-mile task, I found myself low at
the end of the day as thermals died. Just under 10 miles out, I had the
last decent strip before flying over hills and unlandable desert. My flight
computer said I had 350 feet over a 2-knot glide. Since 500-foot sink in
that distance isn't impossible, I decided to land. I was 1,300 feet above
the ground and, with luck, could have scraped back. I took the safer
option.

No finish donut would have had me decide any differently, this was purely a
safety issue for me. Those that finished were 500 to 1000 feet above me.

Another point is the scoring penalty for landing out. I had managed a quite
respectable 70 mph up to that point and would probably have got close to 900
points if I had finished the task. What do I get for landing 9 miles short
after completing 94% of the task? Not 94%, that's for sure - more like 30%
to 40%.

Any economist will tell you that this high rate of taxation for landing out
will encourage the risk takers to push on for a better reward.

Maybe we should use a carrot and not a stick and look at a scoring system
that rewards distance and speed and doesn't punish landouts so severely.
This makes more sense to me than messing with tried and tested finish
procedures.

Mike ASW 20 WA

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> It is different Tom.
>
> Yes, there are always climbing and cruising sailplanes
> in the mix. The difference is that the closer you are
> to the finish the more likely it is that gliders will
> be converging on each other (horizontally AND vertically)
> and the more likely it is that the cruising sailplanes
> will be doing something approaching redline rather
> than 75-100 knots.
>
> The logic for the difference is simple. If you know
> you can't make it home you are likely to be making
> outlanding preparations somewhere around 700-1,200
> feet - depending on terrain and availability of landable
> fields. In the 'final glide gone bad' scenario you
> would come to this decision 5-10 miles out and either
> find a thermal or land (at least most pilots I know
> will - unless they're flying over a terrain so benign
> that it's like one big putting green). At this distance
> the higher speed traffic is well higher and hasn't
> started to burn off the extra altitude they are carrying
> as a buffer. The climbing glider won't likely climb
> up to them anyway unless it finds a real corker of
> a thermal (somewhat unlikely under 'low save' circumstances).
> The reason you don't often find gliders making low
> saves at less than 5 miles out today is that they've
> all landed out by then or made it home - put another
> way not many pilots set up for a landout from 500'.
>
> Under the proposed rule you can find yourself at 2.5
> miles from home and 700' AGL with not enough altitude
> for a speed finish, but enough altitude to get home.
> What would you do in this situation? EXACTLY - you
> will hunt around the edge of the donut for lift. aHopefully,
> as you get lower you drift towards the airport to keep
> the landing option open (not sure if the rule allows
> for catching a thermal below 500' right over the airport,
> climbing up to enough height to go out to 2 miles and
> back above 500'). I suppose we could make a rule that
> if you EVER get below 500' AGL in a flight you're done,
> but it would probably only be enforceable in the flatlands
> of Kansas.
>
> So there you are climbing up at 2.5 miles out, trying
> to get enough altitude to make it to the inside edge
> of the donut at 500'. Say you'll accept a Mc=2 glide.
> Well at 2 miles the difference between a Mc=2 glide
> and a Mc=6 glide is 150'. So all the guys coming steaming
> home - now at close to redline will be more or less
> at your altitude. Under the current rules this is unlikely
> to happen at less than 6 miles out - where the differential
> altitude margin is three times as great and the speed
> differentials are somewhat lower.
>
> If you want some really interesting and action-packed
> finishes with a few poor pilots stuck outside the donut
> - able to glide to the airport but unable to finish
> for speed points - floating around at low altitude
> and mixing it up with gliders at redline - all within
> view of spectators - then this is your best shot.
>
> Wait, I forgot the best part! The guys at redline will
> have their heads in the cockpit, looking at their glide
> computers, because 500' up on a two mile radius has
> no visual reference to fly against.
>
> Democracy is a great thing, but without goodwill towards
> others it offers the potential for 51% to inflict pain
> on 49%. If you want to finish at 500' go ahead - you
> don't need a rule for it and it costs you only a minute
> or so. I personally carry 1,000' of extra until I'm
> 5-7 miles out.
>
> While I believe it is 100% well intentioned, I don't
> think this proposal actually helps and it has some
> very funky potential side effects.
>
> Vote away!
>
> 9B
>
> At 20:30 20 September 2003, Tom Seim wrote:
> >Andy Blackburn wrote in message news:...
> >> I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.
> >>
> >> If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make
> >>it
> >> to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
> >> A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my
> >>ship
> >> requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
> >> a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
> >> climb even higher if you want any buffer.
> >>
> >> I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
> >> adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
> >> for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
> >> and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold
> >>altitude.
> >> A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
> >> will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
> >> making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide
> >>to
> >> the inner part of the donut.
> >>
> >> The simple point here is that all of this climbing
> >> and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
> >> rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
> >> is because the ground forces the issue later with
> >>the
> >> extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
> >> separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
> >> goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
> >> separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
> >> for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
> >> increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
> >> assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
> >> climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
> >> the same.
> >
> >I don't see how this is any different; we have to see
> >and avoid other
> >sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the
> >time that we have
> >come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally
> >anywhere on
> >course, including directly over turn points. And even
> >if you don't
> >have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally
> >and
> >high-speed gliders in-bound to finish.
> >
> >I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing
> >to the sport
> >except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some
> >very anxious
> >crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs
> >for minimum
> >altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may
> >have some
> >competitive edge because they are willing to push it
> >lower than the
> >others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote,
> >let democracy
> >function and accept the result.
> >
>
>
>

[Ivan Kahn]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:nEqab.42131$n94.18608@fed1read04...
>
> > I suggest that glider pilots are, as a group, no where near as skilled
as
> > those pilots and to permit glider pilots to execute down to the deck
high
> > speed finishes at an airport does seem imprudent. The simple fact is we
> > legislate good judgment all over the place and some glider pilots do not
> > exercise good judgment.
> >
> > Ivan
>
> Hmmmm....I see no Ivan Kahn on the US Pilot Ranking List which means
either
> you have never raced or maybe you're simply not giving us your real name.
> Sounds like you must know a lot about the skill level of racing pilots
> though. Too bad you won't be allowed to vote in the poll.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix
>
>

I am not on the list and if racing pilots are so adverse to engaging in safe
operations you never will. One need not be reckless to engage in fair,
honest and challenging competition. And by the way, "racing" pilots only
account for about 3.5% of SSA membership. And so perhaps you should avoid
****ing off the 96+% upon whom you rely to support your racing efforts by
running the competitions, and from whom you might hope to one day encourage
to join the ranks of "racing pilots" to keep that aspect of our sport alive.

And yes, it is
Ivan Kahn
ATP, CFI, SSAI

[Ivan Kahn]

I am happy to let your comments speak for themselves.

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:CmLbb.796$hp5.153@fed1read04...
> I've tried being reasonable, I've tried being logical, I've tried being
> persuasive to the "96+%" but the final line is that there are many of
those
> folks that obviously know so much that none of those ways apply.
>
> You expounded upon the idea that we racing pilots are "no where near as
> skilled" as aerobatic pilots. In the first place that is an absurd
> comparison. In the second place having never raced yourself you must
little
> to no personal knowledge of racing pilots so it makes your statement
> baseless. Although I have hundreds of aerobatic hours in both powered and
> glider aircraft I would never dream of getting on an aerobatic newsgroup
and
> start tossing out opinions of how dangerous competitive aerobatics is
having
> never competed.
>
> If it is not clear, I am sick and tired of folks such as you acting like
we
> racing pilots are somehow beholding to you. As far as I'm concerned it is
> time to begin the process of separating US sailplane racing from the rest
of
> it. Then you can have your own little world and legislate away.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix
>
>

[Tom Seim]

"BMacLean" > wrote in message >...
> They could drive slower, have mandatory car separation and have to use
> blinkers to pass. And to make horse racing safer, they could stop putting
> those little men on the horses backs. But to be really safe, they just
> shouldn't race!

I guess if you have nothing to say you rely on pointless (and humourless) satire.

Tom

[Tom Seim]

>
> So now we are "adrenaline junkies". Give me a break. I like to race,
> fly fast, fly far, and when it's safe, fly low. Some people like to
> race cars, or ski on glaciers, or whatever. No-one makes them do it at
> gunpoint. But why in soaring do some pilots feel compelled to force
> other pilots to meet their comfort level? In NO OTHER COMPETIVE SPORT
> is the nature of the competition dumbed down to the level of the
> weakest competitor, on the contrary, it is supposed to be a challenge
> to perform well.

You are an "adrenaline junky" whether you like it or not. That is the
hormone that gets released in these circumstances (it sure as hell
isn't melatonine!). If you didn't get it you'ld say "that sure is
boring" and go do something else. And tell me why I should give you a
break; you don't give me any. You clearly don't like the word "junky",
but I think it applies to you in the context of your previous posts.
You prefer the word "thrill". So what, the result is the same.
Hopefully, your instinct of self preservation kicks in before you kill
yourself. It's well known in sky diving, for instance, that there is
that select group that likes the thrill of the "low pull", some of
which end up killing themselves. I don't know your age, but I would
guess that it is 30ish; I happen to be a grandfather and fall into the
"old pilot" category. I have had more than one near death experience,
which tends to temper one's adventurism. I have had my share of
experiences including mountain climbing (rock & ice), SCUBA diving, &
car racing (besides flying). I don't happen to think that soaring is
being "dumbed down"; maybe it is being "dumbed up". Contest are won
out on course, not on the final glide. An optimized task will have you
coming in at best glide speed. If you aren't aware of this I would
suggest reading Moffet's book "Winning on the Wind", it could correct
some misconceptions that you appear to have.

>
> You want to finish high, go ahead. But don't complain if I finish
> lower and faster. And I won't complain if I misjudge and land short.

I won't complain unless you hit my parked glider like that one guy
did. I would even help you retrieve your glider.

Tom

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
(Tom Seim) wrote:

> Contest are won
> out on course, not on the final glide. An optimized task will have you
> coming in at best glide speed. If you aren't aware of this I would
> suggest reading Moffet's book "Winning on the Wind", it could correct
> some misconceptions that you appear to have.

That's only true if your last climb rate was 0 fpm, or you hit cloudbase
with just barely enough height to get home. If your "last thermal" is
high enough and not too far from home then you should keep climbing
until you can set a Macready number for the final glide equal to your
climb rate at the point you leave the thermal. So if your last thermal
is giving you 500 fpm then it makes complete sense to come home at Mc=5,
if you can make it all the way to the finish line at that speed.

-- Bruce

[Dale Kramer]

John

I have flown quite a few contest days with the 2 mile 500 foot finish.

Here are my comments:

1. On a purely emotional level, I miss (and I'm sure the spectators
do too) the 50 foot speed pass finish line. I know that you can still
do one after you cross the ring but in practice most people just come
in and land.

2. On a practical basis, it leads to more heads down flying. Most
people do a 50 foot speed pass finish completely heads up (maybe an
airspeed check once in a while). The ring puts your head in the
cockpit. The optimum finish is still at 501 feet and max airspeed.
You just can't judge this 2 miles out without a lot of heads down
work.

3. On a global perspective, this rule is just a bandaid that
necessitates more bandaids. I did not like it when Charlie started
adding 3 minutes to your time for rolling finishes under the ring and
now you are adding another bandaid by saying you don't get speed
points if you go under the ring. The bandaids go on and on. What
about the contestant that has the fastest speed, crosses the ring at
110 knots but does it at 499 feet. Distance points only? The harsh
100 point turnpoint penalty had to have its own bandaid for missing
the turnpoint by 15 feet, that will have to happen here too. The
bandaids keep going on and on for the finish ring.

As you can see I am against the finish ring.

I do, however propose a different solution for low energy finishes.

Bring the exciting heads up speed pass finish line back and solve the
low energy problem with some sort of finish line groundspeed minimum
or minimum altitude to achieve after the finish line. Don't have
harsh point penalty steps in the solution either. After all the main
reason people are tempted to do a low energy finish is the harsh point
penalty associated with a landout. Maybe thats what should be
addressed!

Just my 2 cents

Dale Kramer
K1

[John Cochrane]

I've been following all these responses with interest, but I feel we
have lost some of the forest in looking at the leaves on the trees.

The point where a glider race ends is arbitrary. We can end the race
-- calculate speed and give speed points -- for any landing within a 5
mile circle of the home airport. We can end the race as we do now, at
the airport fence. We can end the race 500 feet up. It's the same for
everybody. Where we end the race has no effect at all on the
competitive, soaring aspect. Adjust your arrival margin accordingly.

Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?

John Cochrane

[JJ Sinclair]

John wrote>>>>>>>>>>>.>
>Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
>little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?

I agree completely, John. Now lets talk about the penalty for arriving at 490
feet? Distance only? Isn't that a bit harsh?


JJ Sinclair

[John Cochrane]

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message

> >Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
> >little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?
>
> I agree completely, John. Now lets talk about the penalty for arriving at 490
> feet? Distance only? Isn't that a bit harsh?
>
> JJ Sinclair

Well, one answer is, "what is the penalty for finishing at -10 feet
now?" It's even harsher! Moving the race up 500 feet has reduced, not
increased, the penalty for arriving 10 feet too low.

But if this is the only objection, I would be delighted to support a
graduated penalty. For example, it could be distance points only below
400 feet, then x points per foot below 600 feet. This is a minor issue
compared to the major one, do we do it at all.

The question of graduated vs. sharp penalties is an interesting (and
separate) issue. Having decided on some limit, including max start
altitude, start radius, prohibited airspace, turnpoint radius, etc.,
as well as a finish height, does it make more sense to write a simple
sharp rule, and let pilots judge how much of a margin they want to
leave, or is it best to have graduated penalties so that pilots who
don't leave enough margin are not too severely affected by
"accidents"?

I prefer simple rules: Over max start, one fix in a prohibited area,
etc. and you get the penalty, period. Wise pilots leave some margin (I
do beleive in pilot judgment, especially when only points are at
stake!) But I am in a minority, and therefore the rules contain a
mind-boggling set of provisions for graduated penalties; so many
points per foot for quite some distance, and then the full penalty.

Why don't I like it? Nobody can remember all these penalties, and once
they are there, using them becomes part of contest strategy. It has
happened to me that it was advantageous to claim a turnpoint while
taking the 100 point penalty rather than ignore it. (I was 50 feet
below ingalls on a MAT. Just couldn't get there!) This took knowing
the rule, and a lot of quick calculation before turning in the landing
card. Thus, the rules have become much more complex, and really
serious pilots cannot ignore the complexity.

The only point of the graduated penalty is to encourage pilots to cut
it as close as possible, e.g. hang in the start gaggle at 4999', glued
to the altimeter, knowing 5001' is a small penalty not zero for the
day, rather than hang in the start gaggle at a more comfortable 4700',
knowing the simple rule that one fix over 5000' ends the day and the
contest.

The same point goes on the finish altitude. Do we want to encourage
people to really cut it close with a graduated penalty (needing lots
of heads down time), or do we want to say "look, there's a cliff at
500 feet, so come in at 700 or 800, ok?" Is encouraging people to cut
it close important at all, or important enough that it's worth
clogging the rules with numbers?

Everyone keeps saying "we need simple rules!" Well, here is a place to
get them: throw out all the graduated penalties and set your own
limits. Or do people not really mean it about simple rules?

Again this is not a strong opinion, nor a terribly important issue.
The opposite end is actually self-serving; I'm really good at math and
willing to spend the time to figure out how to game all these little
rules for advantage. I just don't think that situation is good for the
sport.

Still, if a graduated penalty is all it takes to put in a high point
before finish, count me in!

John Cochrane
BB

[Kevin Christner]

>
> Everyone keeps saying "we need simple rules!" Well, here is a place to
> get them: throw out all the graduated penalties and set your own
> limits. Or do people not really mean it about simple rules?
>

Or not have any new rules at all!

>
> John Cochrane
> BB

[Kirk Stant]

(Tom Seim) wrote in message news

> You are right, of course, I should have used the term "optimized"
> instead of "best". It definitely doesn't make sense to continue
> climbing so you can glide in at redline speed (unless you have a 15-20
> kt thermal!).

Currently (and especially where I usually race, where the last 10
miles are totally unlandable), I try for a MC (3, 4, whatever based on
last climb) plus at least 500', so that I have a pad over the bad
stretch. If I get low on glide, I can slow down, but when I get down
to a MC 2 with no pad, I know I have to find something to bump or it's
going to be a real low energy finish. I won't try it at less than MC
2, not worth it. So what usually happens is that as the glide
progresses I tend to get higher on the glide as I get close, in order
to keep a good pad for the last 10 miles, then by 5 miles or so can
accelerate back to speed (redline if possible) to make up some of the
lost "ideal" speed. As a result, I'm usually at about 200 ft and fast
at 1 mile (from the airport). I checked this last Sunday, on a day
when getting home was tricky - and the rest of the guys I fly with do
about the same thing.

So what does the 500' rule add, safety wise? If someone who is racing
doesn't understand what is going on here, they need more training
(Whoa, there is a subject for discussion - minimum demonstrated skills
and knowledge for racing!), not rules that complicate an already busy
part of the flight.

In my experience, positive reinforcement works, negative doesn't. If
I finish and don't land our, I get points. I want to make decisions
that get me home, fast, in the running, not take risks of landing our
or finishing slow or breaking something. A rule that says "Don't do
this or else" is not nearly as effective.

Anyway - everybody fill our the SRA poll and let's see what happens.

Kirk
66

[Gary Ittner]

Cliff Hilty wrote:

> Youve hit on something that I have been thinking about
> for several years now and don't see the relavence of
> penalizing the landout so extremely. It seems to me
> that if you base the landout on a percentage of the
> slowest finishers score that you will significantly
> reduce the 'Have to make it home to score' and will
> allow a better decision making process earlier in the
> flight. I Suggested this in the opinion section of
> the recent poll that started this thread. I suggest
> that you take the slowest finishers score and award
> points to the landouts by a percentage of course length
> acheieved. IE slowest finisher acheives 800 points
> and flew 100 miles. Landout guy, flys 90% of slowest
> finisher distance and lands at the last available airfeild
> before unlandable terrain. He woud recieve 720 points.
> Allowing him not to lose the contest on the first day
> with a landout and giving him incentive not to risk
> the alternative of a bad landing site. Ther are already
> penalties for landing out such as long retrieves disassembly
> and reassembly, less sleep ect. Obviously it can be
> massaged for better numbers and maybe more penalty
> for longer time on course ect ect. What do you all
> think? I think this has real possibilities. At least
> better ones than imposing higher finishes, 15 min add
> rules, ect ect.


Did you see the movie "A Beautiful Mind" (Oscar winner for Best Picture
of 2001)? There's a wonderful scene in which mathematician John Nash
introduces the concept of the "Nash equilibrium" to his fellow grad
students, using the example of how their collective individual
tendencies to go for the prettiest girl in the bar will inevitably
result in none of them getting laid that night.

Here's the result I get when I apply the Nash equilibrium principle to
your scoring scheme: one pilot gets 1000 points and the rest each get
999 points. Each pilot's individual tendency to go for the highest score
that he can get will inevitably result in one pilot finishing and all
other pilots deliberately landing just short of the finish line.

To most easily see why this is so, imagine an Assigned Task with all the
pilots starting together in a big furball. Pilot A is the first, and
therefore the fastest, finisher and gets 1000 points. As pilot B
approaches the finish, he calculates that his speed will be 95% of the
winner's speed, earning 950 points. Ah, but if there is only one
finisher, the fastest finisher is also the slowest finisher. In that
case, pilot B would get 999 points if he landed just short of the finish
line, so that is what he does.

If pilot C comes along and finishes with 90% of the winner's speed,
pilot B would be bumped down to 899 points, so pilot B would have done
better to finish for 950 points, right? True, but that assumes that
pilot C would screw himself by finishing for 900 points when he too
could have landed short for 999 points. And so on, down the list.

The reason we have scoring systems with a high "landout penalty" is
precisely to eliminate these situations in which a pilot might get fewer
points for finishing than he would get for deliberately landing short of
the finish line.

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

[Cliff Hilty]

Gary, I disagree with your scenaro. there are many
ways to massage this to make it happen not the least
of which would base the landout guy score on time as
well as distance ie if he was faster than the slowest
finisher he would still score less than him. Therefore,
his incentive would be to finish not to landout. You
also assume that there will be a place to land right
off the airport. If the last place to land is 20 miles
away on a 200 mile task it is only 90% or 900 points
in your scenaro. I don't know of any of the racing
pilots I fly with that will settle for that! Assume
another scenaro where the day dies after just one finisher
and all of the pilots are at the last air field and
land there in order thaey all would not score the same
it would or could be based on time around the course
to that point and still less than the finisher. In
this scenaro you could do away with devauleing a day
as well. Anyway its good to have these discussions.
Some changes can be good, some can be bad and the more
we talk about it the better options we can come up
with.

Cliff Hilty Ventus B


At 14:18 27 September 2003, Gary Ittner wrote:

>Did you see the movie 'A Beautiful Mind' (Oscar winner
>for Best Picture
>of 2001)? There's a wonderful scene in which mathematician
>John Nash
>introduces the concept of the 'Nash equilibrium' to
>his fellow grad
>students, using the example of how their collective
>individual
>tendencies to go for the prettiest girl in the bar
>will inevitably
>result in none of them getting laid that night.
>
>Here's the result I get when I apply the Nash equilibrium
>principle to
>your scoring scheme: one pilot gets 1000 points and
>the rest each get
>999 points. Each pilot's individual tendency to go
>for the highest score
>that he can get will inevitably result in one pilot
>finishing and all
>other pilots deliberately landing just short of the
>finish line.
>
>To most easily see why this is so, imagine an Assigned
>Task with all the
>pilots starting together in a big furball. Pilot A
>is the first, and
>therefore the fastest, finisher and gets 1000 points.
>As pilot B
>approaches the finish, he calculates that his speed
>will be 95% of the
>winner's speed, earning 950 points. Ah, but if there
>is only one
>finisher, the fastest finisher is also the slowest
>finisher. In that
>case, pilot B would get 999 points if he landed just
>short of the finish
>line, so that is what he does.
>
>If pilot C comes along and finishes with 90% of the
>winner's speed,
>pilot B would be bumped down to 899 points, so pilot
>B would have done
>better to finish for 950 points, right? True, but that
>assumes that
>pilot C would screw himself by finishing for 900 points
>when he too
>could have landed short for 999 points. And so on,
>down the list.
>
>The reason we have scoring systems with a high 'landout
>penalty' is
>precisely to eliminate these situations in which a
>pilot might get fewer
>points for finishing than he would get for deliberately
>landing short of
>the finish line.
>
>Gary Ittner P7
>'Have glider, will race'

[John Galloway]

Pure undiluted common sense.

John Galloway


At 22:06 29 September 2003, Chip Bearden wrote:
>I agree with Dale (below). I was waiting for someone
>to voice the
>'hey, it's fun' rationale for traditional high-speed
>finishes and it's
>amazing that it took nearly 50 postings:
>
>> 1. On a purely emotional level, I miss (and I'm sure
>>the spectators
>> do too) the 50 foot speed pass finish line.
>
>> Dale Kramer
>> K1
>
>I also agree with Kirk Stant that part of the appeal
>(and challenge)
>of soaring is that it allows us to incur whatever level
>of risk we
>intelligently elect. 'Adrenaline junky' is a harsh
>term but I'll be
>honest in admitting that the part of the 'thrill' (another
>harsh term
>used in this context) of soaring is the element of
>risk and how we as
>pilots manage it.
>
>There was a provocative article in (I believe) Gliding
>Kiwi about ten
>years ago that said, in effect, let's quit trying to
>convince everyone
>that soaring is 100% safe. It's not, and therein lies
>some of the
>appeal. Certainly competition soaring involves an element
>of that.
>
>Those who know me also know that, at age 52 with a
>wife and 9-year-old
>twin daughters, and with a father and a best friend
>who were both
>killed in soaring accidents, I certainly don't have
>a death wish. Far
>from it. I WANT to be as safe a pilot as I can be.
>But I also want to
>enjoy this sport the way I always have, and contest
>finishes still
>have the same appeal they did when I first starting
>flying contests in
>1968.
>
>As for the less emotional arguments for/against, they've
>been made.
>The most persuasive, to me, is that whatever penalty
>is imposed for
>busting the floor of the finish donut will, perversely,
>act as an
>incentive to thermal at low altitudes trying to 'save'
>a flight, even
>a flight that, ironically, could be concluded quite
>safely be simply
>gliding to the finish line sedately from one or two
>miles out and 499
>feet. Yeah, it might make some pilots or flights 'safer'
>but I can see
>how it will make certain other situations 'less safe.'
>A lot depends
>on what the meaning of the word 'safe' is. :)
>
>Based on my experience with the donut, I also agree
>with Dale that you
>tend to spend more time heads down to make sure you
>don't bust the
>hard deck at the last minute. After all, you can't
>actually SEE it,
>unlike the traditional finish line. My biggest fear
>is learning after
>the flight that my flight recorder shows I missed the
>donut by, say,
>20 feet even though my altimeter indicated I was 50
>feet above when
>the GPS said 1.0 mile. Given the number of turnpoints
>that pilots have
>missed by a few meters, do we really need another way
>of screwing up a
>flight?
>
>I'm from the old school. I check out fields under the
>glide path from
>likely finish directions BEFORE final glide. I keep
>500 feet dialed in
>as a final glide margin and often take more than that.
>And when I'm
>not sure I can make it back safely, I land. I may make
>that decision
>10 miles out at 2000 feet (or even higher) or one mile
>out at 200 feet
>depending on the fields, the weather, etc.
>
>But it's MY decision, not someone writing rules that
>attempt to level
>the playing field for pilots with vastly different
>amounts of skill
>and experience. No matter how noble the rationale,
>that's a
>troublesome way of thinking to me, even in the name
>of 'safety.'
>
>The low finish isn't something an inexperienced pilot
>should try
>without proper preparation. And it isn't something
>anyone should try
>under improper conditions. But, as for many other things
>we do in
>sailplanes that the uninitiated think are dangerous,
>the cure for this
>'problem' seems to be better training, better qualification
>of
>contestants, and better judgment rather than blanket
>prohibitions. The
>increasingly popular regional competition clinics are
>great places to
>address this.
>
>Chip Bearden
>

[Kilo Charlie]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> Perhaps, but, am I really the only one who has experienced a near miss
after
> finishing an PST/MAT using a GPS finish gate with no low altitude limit?

I'm not sure what your point is Marc but there is no such thing as "a GPS
finish gate with no low altitude limit". The minimum is 50'.

If you are meaning that finishers are coming from all directions then I
agree that it can be a problem. That is why experienced CD's call for
either a steering turnpoint as the last one or for folks to finish from a
single direction. In my experience the latter still can provide some
problems so I prefer the steering turnpoint.

If you are meaning that you nearly didn't make it home then I honestly feel
that it is a pure miscalculation on the pilots part. Every single flight
that we take we have to decide how much margin to put in re making it back.
That is totally up to you as it should be. But please don't blame me if you
chose to begin a marginal final glide and don't quite get there or barely
make it. I am a conservative racing pilot and the only time that I can
remember barely making it back (rolling finish) is when I had 30 other
gliders, half lower than me and in front, at the 1998 Uvalde Std Nats last
day. Even with that I was puckered and haven't done it since.

And I think that Chip has summarized things in the best way possible from my
viewpoint. Thanks Chip!

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Chris Ashburn]

John Cochrane wrote:

> I've been following all these responses with interest, but I feel we
> have lost some of the forest in looking at the leaves on the trees.
>
> The point where a glider race ends is arbitrary. We can end the race
> -- calculate speed and give speed points -- for any landing within a 5
> mile circle of the home airport. We can end the race as we do now, at
> the airport fence. We can end the race 500 feet up. It's the same for
> everybody. Where we end the race has no effect at all on the
> competitive, soaring aspect. Adjust your arrival margin accordingly.
>
> Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
> little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?
>
> John Cochrane

Arbitrary, yes. BUT with implications.

I have heard the points about low thermalling with finishing traffic
close overhead, and
find I'm coming to this conclusion:

The most likely way to have thing's turn out OK at the end of the day
(defined as everybody happy, with gliders in one piece and scored)
is to stick with the current finish, along with whatever low-flying-over
the airport
local rule (with penalty) is necessary.

That way, people can non arbitrarily add their safety margin (or not) and
accept
their non ideal finish while enjoying a beer without worrying if they're
10 feet under
the finish gate because of the pressure changing and not wanting to keep
their eyes
in the cockpit as the digits on the GPS tick down (horizontal
AND vertical now!)

Chris (a +1000ft guy out here in the West USA)

[Marc Ramsey]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote...
> If you are meaning that finishers are coming from all directions then I
> agree that it can be a problem. That is why experienced CD's call for
> either a steering turnpoint as the last one or for folks to finish from a
> single direction. In my experience the latter still can provide some
> problems so I prefer the steering turnpoint.

Yes, that's what I mean. The contests I've experienced of late, where the low
pass lovers convince the CD to use a finish gate, call for finishing from a
single direction, but never have a steering turnpoint. My closest near-miss
resulted from a high finish (I like having a cushion, I haven't finished a
contest below 500 feet AGL in 10 years) and a normal pattern, then having
someone make a redline pass less than 100 feet below me just before my base to
final turn. He made the 4 mile call without specifying a direction, and never
saw me. Now, when I'm in the pattern, whether at a contest, or not, I'm
watching the runway, the windsock, etc., not for adrenaline junkies on the deck.

Personally, I don't like steering turns, because they just move the problem out
a few miles, and at many sites can turn a comfortable final glide into a
marginal situation. My attitude is I'm willing to do MATs or put up with a
finish gate, but not both in the same task.

Marc

[Kilo Charlie]

I would only add that as far as I'm concerned, most pilots will be finishing
at a fairly specific point with a finish gate from the same direction. The
gate is only one kilometer wide vs. a cylinder which allows pilots to finish
legally from any direction (360 degrees) and angle. Especially in a
situation where folks are finishing from all directions with or without a
500' rule, it is dangerous and should not be allowed.

Give me a situation and I can guarantee that I can come up with more than
one way to make it fail wrt safety. This thread has many great examples of
that. I am not trying to belittle your testimony of the finish you
described but there is not ever going to be a totally safe finish method or
sport.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Marc Ramsey]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote...
> I would only add that as far as I'm concerned, most pilots will be finishing
> at a fairly specific point with a finish gate from the same direction. The
> gate is only one kilometer wide vs. a cylinder which allows pilots to finish
> legally from any direction (360 degrees) and angle. Especially in a
> situation where folks are finishing from all directions with or without a
> 500' rule, it is dangerous and should not be allowed.

Casey, have you ever actually flown a contest that used a finish cylinder? If
they're coming from all directions, they're spread out over the circumference of
the cylinder, 6+ miles for a 1 mile cylinder, or 12+ miles for a 2 mile
cylinder. The majority of us (you know, the non-adrenalin junkies) make an easy
pull up upon crossing into the cylinder, and are high, slow, and looking by the
time we're going to have conflicts with gliders coming from other directions.
It's significantly more relaxed and safer than trying to hook a gate while
gliders are coming every which way, plus you don't have conflicts with gliders
redlining it at 200 feet while you're trying to land.

Marc

[Andy Blackburn]

Well put Chip.

9B

At 22:06 29 September 2003, Chip Bearden wrote:
>I agree with Dale (below). I was waiting for someone
>to voice the
>'hey, it's fun' rationale for traditional high-speed
>finishes and it's
>amazing that it took nearly 50 postings:
>
>> 1. On a purely emotional level, I miss (and I'm sure
>>the spectators
>> do too) the 50 foot speed pass finish line.
>
>> Dale Kramer
>> K1
>
>I also agree with Kirk Stant that part of the appeal
>(and challenge)
>of soaring is that it allows us to incur whatever level
>of risk we
>intelligently elect. 'Adrenaline junky' is a harsh
>term but I'll be
>honest in admitting that the part of the 'thrill' (another
>harsh term
>used in this context) of soaring is the element of
>risk and how we as
>pilots manage it.
>
>There was a provocative article in (I believe) Gliding
>Kiwi about ten
>years ago that said, in effect, let's quit trying to
>convince everyone
>that soaring is 100% safe. It's not, and therein lies
>some of the
>appeal. Certainly competition soaring involves an element
>of that.
>
>Those who know me also know that, at age 52 with a
>wife and 9-year-old
>twin daughters, and with a father and a best friend
>who were both
>killed in soaring accidents, I certainly don't have
>a death wish. Far
>from it. I WANT to be as safe a pilot as I can be.
>But I also want to
>enjoy this sport the way I always have, and contest
>finishes still
>have the same appeal they did when I first starting
>flying contests in
>1968.
>
>As for the less emotional arguments for/against, they've
>been made.
>The most persuasive, to me, is that whatever penalty
>is imposed for
>busting the floor of the finish donut will, perversely,
>act as an
>incentive to thermal at low altitudes trying to 'save'
>a flight, even
>a flight that, ironically, could be concluded quite
>safely be simply
>gliding to the finish line sedately from one or two
>miles out and 499
>feet. Yeah, it might make some pilots or flights 'safer'
>but I can see
>how it will make certain other situations 'less safe.'
>A lot depends
>on what the meaning of the word 'safe' is. :)
>
>Based on my experience with the donut, I also agree
>with Dale that you
>tend to spend more time heads down to make sure you
>don't bust the
>hard deck at the last minute. After all, you can't
>actually SEE it,
>unlike the traditional finish line. My biggest fear
>is learning after
>the flight that my flight recorder shows I missed the
>donut by, say,
>20 feet even though my altimeter indicated I was 50
>feet above when
>the GPS said 1.0 mile. Given the number of turnpoints
>that pilots have
>missed by a few meters, do we really need another way
>of screwing up a
>flight?
>
>I'm from the old school. I check out fields under the
>glide path from
>likely finish directions BEFORE final glide. I keep
>500 feet dialed in
>as a final glide margin and often take more than that.
>And when I'm
>not sure I can make it back safely, I land. I may make
>that decision
>10 miles out at 2000 feet (or even higher) or one mile
>out at 200 feet
>depending on the fields, the weather, etc.
>
>But it's MY decision, not someone writing rules that
>attempt to level
>the playing field for pilots with vastly different
>amounts of skill
>and experience. No matter how noble the rationale,
>that's a
>troublesome way of thinking to me, even in the name
>of 'safety.'
>
>The low finish isn't something an inexperienced pilot
>should try
>without proper preparation. And it isn't something
>anyone should try
>under improper conditions. But, as for many other things
>we do in
>sailplanes that the uninitiated think are dangerous,
>the cure for this
>'problem' seems to be better training, better qualification
>of
>contestants, and better judgment rather than blanket
>prohibitions. The
>increasingly popular regional competition clinics are
>great places to
>address this.
>
>Chip Bearden
>

[Gary Ittner]

Cliff Hilty wrote:

> Exactly my point, Pilot E makes a decision to go straight
> in and land. Excepting the fact that he will lose points
> to the slowest finisher but also not pushing a bad
> situation. and landing at a good airfeild. I would
> reward this not penalize it! Pilot D instead is hoping
> for a break in the storm and risks losing points to
> pilot E with the hope of a payoff by making it home
> and pushing pilot E's score down. Seems to me that
> its a competetive pilots decision to make.

Wow! I am absolutely astounded that you could conclude that pilot E
deserves more points than pilot D in the scenario that I presented in my
previous post. Is there anyone else out there in RAS-land that agrees
with Cliff?

> I just don't see
> the need to have a single landout eliminate you from
> having a chance to win a contest!

You obviously think that it is unfair for the landout to be penalized so
severely, but have you considered that reducing or eliminating the
landout penalty might be unfair to the pilots who do whatever it takes
to finish the task? And doing "whatever it takes" usually does not mean
risk-taking, but the antithesis of risk-taking: get high stay high, go
around the blue hole, take a few extra turns in the last thermal, keep a
large altitude margin throughout the final glide, etc.

> How many contests
> have you been to that after the first or second day
> a few competitors have dropped out because of landouts
> and knowing that they will not have a chance to place
> even in the top three?

I don't think that's any reason to change the scoring system; I'd say
those competitors need to change their attitudes. They are obviously
placing too much importance on the ego-trip of winning, and not placing
enough importance on taking advantage of a golden opportunity to improve
and refine their cross-country soaring skills.

When a pilot falls out of contention early in a contest, that's a great
time for him to start experimenting with changes in his racing strategy,
such as reducing his aggressiveness in the selection of thermals, or
increasing his aggressiveness in making off-course excursions to seek
out the best lift. A pilot who is leading or in contention cannot afford
to indulge in such experimentation; he should be conservative and keep
on doing whatever he's been doing.

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

[JJ Sinclair]

I got to agree with Marc, on this one. We are seeing a lot of MAT tasks and
about 3 hours after the gate opens, the sky is full of gliders coming from all
directions. They hit the 1 mile, 500 foot gate, pull up, slow up, get in the
pattern and start acting like gentlemen again. I flew 4 contests (one a
nationals) that used the 500 foot, 1 mile gate this year, I like it and its
much safer. At Montague the pilots were asked to get the winds form AWOS at 10
miles out and then switch over to gate frequency and LISTEN for finishers in
front of them. I knew who was finishing and where to look. Its a damned safe
way to run things. Any head-on traffic is seperated by 2 miles. I remember a
finish line at Minden nationals a few years back.I finished at 50 feet, pulled
up and banked over for a landing on 30. As I was turning final at 200 feet, I
saw 3 other ships, already on final for 30, so I slid over to 30 taxiway, just
before touch-down, someone slid in, right in front of me, on MY taxiway. When
we finish at 50 feet, we have given up most of our options, any conflict may
become a disaster.
JJ Sinclair

[John Cochrane]

(Chip Bearden) wrote in message

> I agree with Dale (below). I was waiting for someone to voice the
> "hey, it's fun" rationale for traditional high-speed finishes and it's
> amazing that it took nearly 50 postings:
>
> > 1. On a purely emotional level, I miss (and I'm sure the spectators
> > do too) the 50 foot speed pass finish line.
> <SNIP>
> > Dale Kramer

This is addressed in my very first post on the subject (go back to the
top and read the FAQs) The donut may be followed by a traditional
finish over a line at high speed. If you cross the donut at 500 feet
and 70-80 kts, you will have plenty of margin to cross the finish line
at 50 feet and no more than 120 knots. Try it; it takes 500 feet just
to build up the speed. Maybe louder will help: THE 500 FOOT RULE DOES
NOT ELMINIATE THE FUN LOW FAST FINISH.

As for your need for some physical risk to keep soaring interesting
(as opposed to the constant risk of landout inconvenience, and the
risk of losing the race) ... well, we'll just have to disagree.

I'm interested by the large number of posters on this thread who claim
they personally would never ever finish lower than 500 or 1000 feet,
yet feel putting this in a rule is a terrible idea.

John Cochrane

[Kilo Charlie]

We fly 20 contest days per year here in Arizona Marc and every single one of
them ends with a one mile cylinder. That means that I have finished over 40
times in our ASA series in the past 2 years with the cylinder that you
described so I doubt that you have any more experience than I do with the
system.

The problem is that you may do your "non-adrenaline junky easy pullup" but
most of the pilots that fly contests will NOT be doing that either at one
mile, two miles or fifty miles. So the scenario that you described of
having someone come under you and pull up has exactly equal potential in
your cylinder finish. In fact I would go further and argue that it has MORE
potential since some pilots may continue to push fast toward home (you know
we dangerous, arrogant, hedonistic types) inside the cylinder then pull with
you now wafting around in your extended approach. The rules say nothing
about how you are to enter the pattern or when to pull up. But then silly
me.....I'm sure that's going to be on the table soon too!

This also gets back to the crowd pleasing end as well. Frankly it would
suck to sit out in the heat all day only to have your pilot finish by
entering the pattern. Might as well go down to the local community airport
and watch the Pipers land.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Chip Bearden]

> My closest near-miss
> resulted from a high finish (I like having a cushion, I haven't finished a
> contest below 500 feet AGL in 10 years) and a normal pattern, then having
> someone make a redline pass less than 100 feet below me just before my base to
> final turn. He made the 4 mile call without specifying a direction, and never
> saw me. Now, when I'm in the pattern, whether at a contest, or not, I'm
> watching the runway, the windsock, etc., not for adrenaline junkies on the deck.
>
> Marc

You raise a good point; the situation you described (below) can be
very dangerous. But the solution doesn't have to involve steering
turnpoints (which won't help as much if the landing direction doesn't
coincide with the finish direction) or throwing away the old finish
line. The pilot you described was at fault for not specifying a
direction if there was any doubt (the direction can vary even in ASTs
if the final leg involves a deviation for terrain or weather). But if
I hear someone four miles out when I'm in the pattern and I don't see
them right away, I go into frantic "look" mode and call out my
position (e.g., JB turning left base). This is on top of the normal
lookout for other traffic in the pattern.

I will also radio the other pilot(s), as I did last week at New Castle
when three of us were finishing (as it turned out) less than ten
seconds apart from two different directions and three different
altitudes/energies. It took 30 seconds on the way in to establish
beyond a doubt that we had each other in sight and there was
sufficient separation. Otherwise one or more of us would have pulled
up and finished high. As with everything else in soaring involving
other pilots (e.g., gaggles), I don't take anything for granted, even
with ASTs, steering turns, OR finish cylinders. I'm not saying you
did, but it sounds like there was more than one way to avoid the
problem you recounted.

Another solution is the displaced (to one side) finish line used at
Elmira. Rolling finishes are still OK but flying finishes are parallel
to but 1/4 mile away from the runway.

Chip Bearden

[Marc Ramsey]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote...
> The problem is that you may do your "non-adrenaline junky easy pullup" but
> most of the pilots that fly contests will NOT be doing that either at one
> mile, two miles or fifty miles. So the scenario that you described of
> having someone come under you and pull up has exactly equal potential in
> your cylinder finish. In fact I would go further and argue that it has MORE
> potential since some pilots may continue to push fast toward home (you know
> we dangerous, arrogant, hedonistic types) inside the cylinder then pull with
> you now wafting around in your extended approach. The rules say nothing
> about how you are to enter the pattern or when to pull up. But then silly
> me.....I'm sure that's going to be on the table soon too!

We had a problem with this at the Tonopah regionals in 2001. The center of the
1 mile cylinder was at the exact center of the airport, which placed the edge of
the cylinder within the airport boundaries. Also many people (myself include)
did not trust their computers, or weren't clear on the fact that the finish
occurred at the edge of the cylinder, so they wouldn't pull up until they
reached the airport center.

By the 2002 regionals up here, everyone had pretty much figured how the finish
cylinders worked, the CDs were using 2 mile cylinders when appropriate, and the
pilots were all pulling up at the edge of the cylinder. Works a lot better.
Maybe you guys are just slow learners down there.

> This also gets back to the crowd pleasing end as well. Frankly it would
> suck to sit out in the heat all day only to have your pilot finish by
> entering the pattern. Might as well go down to the local community airport
> and watch the Pipers land.

I don't have a crew very often, but when I do, my wife and daughter are happy to
see me safely on the ground. They could care less about worm burning
finishes...

Marc

[Dale Kramer]

I'm with you Casey.

I have continued to do speed passes on all my cylinder finishes when
practical.

I believe this can be accomplished much more safely than a finish line that
is 3000 feet wide, it can also be more dangerous if everyone does it from
many directions.

All the CD has to say is that all speed passes must be down the runway on
one side or the other and the pull up must be at mid field.

Pilots failing to do this can be penalized for unsafe flying, no more rules
are necessary.

This way, everyone, including me knows what to expect and where.

Dale Kramer
K1





"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message news:<J8geb.4528$hp5.3072@fed1read04>...
> We fly 20 contest days per year here in Arizona Marc and every single one of
> them ends with a one mile cylinder. That means that I have finished over 40
> times in our ASA series in the past 2 years with the cylinder that you
> described so I doubt that you have any more experience than I do with the
> system.
>
> The problem is that you may do your "non-adrenaline junky easy pullup" but
> most of the pilots that fly contests will NOT be doing that either at one
> mile, two miles or fifty miles. So the scenario that you described of
> having someone come under you and pull up has exactly equal potential in
> your cylinder finish. In fact I would go further and argue that it has MORE
> potential since some pilots may continue to push fast toward home (you know
> we dangerous, arrogant, hedonistic types) inside the cylinder then pull with
> you now wafting around in your extended approach. The rules say nothing
> about how you are to enter the pattern or when to pull up. But then silly
> me.....I'm sure that's going to be on the table soon too!
>
> This also gets back to the crowd pleasing end as well. Frankly it would
> suck to sit out in the heat all day only to have your pilot finish by
> entering the pattern. Might as well go down to the local community airport
> and watch the Pipers land.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix

[Cliff Hilty]

At 05:54 30 September 2003, Gary Ittner wrote:

>You obviously think that it is unfair for the landout
>to be >penalized so severely, but have you considered
>that reducing >or eliminating the landout penalty might
>be unfair to the pilots >who do whatever it takes to
>finish the task? And >doing 'whatever it takes' usually
>does not mean risk-taking, >but the antithesis of risk-taking

Gary, Yes I think it is unfair to penalize the landout
so severely. but doing 'whatever it takes' is exactly
that 'What ever it takes takes' and inherently will
be as much dangerous as it will be throttle back and
go around. And nothing in the way of rules will change
that. But the question then is. Is that unfair to
those pilots? I don't think so! It still becomes a
pilots choice to do either. They will still score more
than those that don't think that way. However. consider
this if making it back is as important as you seem
to feel it is, in terms of competing, then why aren't
the rules written so that NO score is given for a landout?
Why? Because until recently it was almost impossible
to score fairly for the distance AND time. With the
flight loggers and computers available now this could
become a reality. I realize that you will never be
happy with that, and maybe nobody else will be either.
And in that case it probably won't happen. But I for
one would like to try it!

I do agree with you about having the right attitude
about learning after being out of contention in a contest.
And learning from that experiance. No changes in scoring
would change that. 'Attitude is everything' and 'Change
is inevitable' One of these you can do something about
the other you can't!

Cliff Hilty Ventus B

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
(John Cochrane) wrote:

> I'm interested by the large number of posters on this thread who claim
> they personally would never ever finish lower than 500 or 1000 feet,
> yet feel putting this in a rule is a terrible idea.

I haven't previously spoken up, but I'm one of them, in so far as I
would never finish with insufficient energy to get to 500 ft at pattern
speed. I've only been to a couple of local/regional contests, and only
in a glider (PW5) that isn't well suited to a high speed and low finish,
but I wouldn't rule out coming in low and fast as long as I was
comfortable with getting back to 500 ft for the pattern. I would (and
have) land out 3 miles short when I think I'm going to get to the field
boundary at 50 knots and 100 ft.

As for the rule being a terrible idea, I agree. I'm also against rules
(laws) banning drugs, guns, and prostitution even though I don't partake
of any of those things, so perhaps you'll discount my opinion on that
one.

-- Bruce

[Kilo Charlie]

Marc...I hope that you don't feel that you're being picked on since your
posts always seem to be well thought out and to the point. I wanted to say
that I agree with Chip again re the fact that it was the fault of the pilot
that flew under you/near you. It is very bad policy to intentionally fly at
redline (or any other speed for that matter) through the landing pattern,
esp the base or final areas.

This season we were actually asked to do this at the Region 9
contest.....they insisted (in spite of protests) that we finish to the west
(90 degrees to the active runway), then pullup and turn hard left crossing
the runway again and enter a left hand pattern. This resulted in landing
pilots on downwind with the later finishers coming at at redline 90 degrees
to their path and even worse with their back to them on base leg. Now THAT
was dangerous! The point I want to make is that there was a lot of talk on
the radio between finishers and landing pilots re position and altitude. I
would not want to do it again but it did work out with everyone
communicating well.

Casey

[Marc Ramsey]

"Dale Kramer" > wrote...
> Some of your responses deserve no response, however:
>
> I will bet that unless your runway is in a 100 foot wide canyon, I can do a
> safe speed pass down one side of it.

If there are buildings, cars, people, a town, etc., on one side of the runway
(which is the case at many airports) you probably aren't going to be allowed to
do high speed passes on that side of the runway.

> The CD doesn't have to call anything. After I finish through the cylinder I
> can do what I want unless there are instructions not to. I just think the
> CD should give guidance for orderly speed passes.

What you said was confusing, I thought you were proposing some sort of finish
gate on both sides of a runway.

I've probably flown 20 or so cylinder finishes at regional contests over the
past couple of years. Except for the very first contest where I (and just about
everyone else) was exposed to them, everyone I've seen does an easy pullup after
they cross the edge of the cylinder.
This is the way finish cylinders are supposed to be used. They were intended to
eliminate the need for high speed passes. It doesn't preclude a high speed
pass, but around here very few people feel the need at this point, and if people
insisted upon doing them at a contest, in many cases the CD would tell them to
stop.

Obviously, there is at least one place where people routinely do high speed
passes after crossing the cylinder. The honest question in my mind is still,
why? If you all want to do passes, use a finish gate, it's clearly safer than
having people coming from different directions and pulling up in the center of
the cylinder.

> Pulling up at the edge of the cylinder is probably more dangerous than
> continuing down to a speed pass. If you finish at 550 feet what about the
> guy finishing behind you that finishes at 650 feet, can you see him?

If you pull up from your pass at 50 feet, and the guy behind you is at 150 feet,
can you see him? Any problems with multiple people finishing simultaneously
from the same direction will be the same whether or not everyone is doing a low
pass. Using an appropriately sized cylinder, and pulling up at the edge,
greatly reduces the high speed conflicts with people coming from other
directions, and pretty much keeps everyone out of the traffic pattern until they
are actually landing.

Marc

[Dale Kramer]

I know on no runways, that contests are run at, that have buildings, or a
town, within 100 feet of the edge of both sides of the runway.

Cars and people should not be there either and if they are, they are
probably on the side with the obstructions.

I do not believe what I said was confusing, I believe you put in words that
were not there.

Again, I do not think you read or understood what I said. In my orderly
speed pass
directives from the CD, I said that the pull up should be at the midpoint of
the runway. This makes pulling up into someone much more unlikely than
doing your pullup at the cylinder edge where some people pull up and others
don't.

I'm done here.

Dale





"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message >...
> "Dale Kramer" > wrote...
> > Some of your responses deserve no response, however:
> >
> > I will bet that unless your runway is in a 100 foot wide canyon, I can do a
> > safe speed pass down one side of it.
>
> If there are buildings, cars, people, a town, etc., on one side of the runway
> (which is the case at many airports) you probably aren't going to be allowed to
> do high speed passes on that side of the runway.
>
> > The CD doesn't have to call anything. After I finish through the cylinder I
> > can do what I want unless there are instructions not to. I just think the
> > CD should give guidance for orderly speed passes.
>
> What you said was confusing, I thought you were proposing some sort of finish
> gate on both sides of a runway.
>
> I've probably flown 20 or so cylinder finishes at regional contests over the
> past couple of years. Except for the very first contest where I (and just about
> everyone else) was exposed to them, everyone I've seen does an easy pullup after
> they cross the edge of the cylinder.
> This is the way finish cylinders are supposed to be used. They were intended to
> eliminate the need for high speed passes. It doesn't preclude a high speed
> pass, but around here very few people feel the need at this point, and if people
> insisted upon doing them at a contest, in many cases the CD would tell them to
> stop.
>
> Obviously, there is at least one place where people routinely do high speed
> passes after crossing the cylinder. The honest question in my mind is still,
> why? If you all want to do passes, use a finish gate, it's clearly safer than
> having people coming from different directions and pulling up in the center of
> the cylinder.
>
> > Pulling up at the edge of the cylinder is probably more dangerous than
> > continuing down to a speed pass. If you finish at 550 feet what about the
> > guy finishing behind you that finishes at 650 feet, can you see him?
>
> If you pull up from your pass at 50 feet, and the guy behind you is at 150 feet,
> can you see him? Any problems with multiple people finishing simultaneously
> from the same direction will be the same whether or not everyone is doing a low
> pass. Using an appropriately sized cylinder, and pulling up at the edge,
> greatly reduces the high speed conflicts with people coming from other
> directions, and pretty much keeps everyone out of the traffic pattern until they
> are actually landing.
>
> Marc

[Chip Bearden]

John Cochrane wrote:

>Maybe louder will help: THE 500 FOOT RULE DOES
>NOT ELMINIATE THE FUN LOW FAST FINISH.
>
>As for your need for some physical risk to keep soaring interesting
>(as opposed to the constant risk of landout inconvenience, and the
>risk of losing the race) ... well, we'll just have to disagree.

We spend a lot of time on RAS discussing theory vs. practice. John's
[loud] comment about the 500 foot rule not eliminating fun, low, fast
finishes is theoretically true. But anyone who's flown the cylinder
will agree that the practical effect is something else, often due to
the organizers' decision to ban high-speed passes.

With the legal environment in the U.S., many organizers will think
twice about allowing traditional "fun" finishes if the rules ever
mandate a 500-foot floor "for safety reasons." And if you think I'm
overreacting, consider an Eastern regional contest last year where the
organizers refused to give the airport bonus anywhere except for
turnpoint airport landings (i.e., on hard-surface runways) because
they had no way of verifying the condition of the many small private
airports marked on the Sectional charts. They didn't want to be sued
if a pilot landed at one and damaged his glider, their having
implicitly warranted the safety of all airports on the chart by
awarding bonus points. Check out the new wording of Rule 9.3 (and
A10.10.4 which explains it: "...But no such efforts [to note fields
that are not landable] in any way modify the pilot's responsibility to
evaluate the safety of any potential landing spot, as new wording in
Rule 9.3 makes clear. It will always be the case that some airfields
shown on a Sectional chart are unsuitable for gliders, especially for
long-wingers. No pilot should be under the mistaken impression that
the availability of a landing bonus constitutes an endorsement of the
safety of an airfield.").

This may seem like a ridiculous case of legislating common sense, but
I strongly believe it makes John's assurance that his proposed rule
won't result in the demise of the traditional high-speed pass naive at
best, and possibly disingenuous.

Regarding physical risk, I guess we do disagree. At least in theory.
In practice, I suspect John would concur that challenging Karl
Striedieck or Doug Jacobs to a rousing game on a PC just doesn't have
the same allure as tilting with them on the ridges at New Castle. :)

Seriously, I don't think admitting that the element of physical risk
inherent in soaring of ANY type (let's not revisit the
driving-to-the-airport vs. gliding risk debate again) renders our
sport more appealing makes me any less responsible, or mature, or safe
than my acknowledgement that I like skiing for some of the same
reasons. And I feel that those who imply otherwise, by dismissing the
comments of finish-line traditionalists as those of "adrenaline
junkies" or "thrill seekers," are edging down the slippery slope of
banning anything that remotely smacks of risk, be it low finishes,
outlandings, crowded gaggles, or--ultimately--soaring itself.

Chip Bearden

[Pat Russell]

What's the record for the longest thread in this newsgroup?

[Kevin Neave]

Since the 8th Sept there's been about 180 postings
on the subject of ballasted pullups!

At 12:00 02 October 2003, Pat Russell wrote:
>What's the record for the longest thread in this newsgroup?
>
>