RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

[Paul Agnew]

From Facebook:

Sad news from the last race day;
Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.

[Paul Agnew]

From the SGP.aero site:

During the last race day the tracker signal from GN Tomas Reich was lost whilst he was flying along the ridges south east of Santiago.
An aircraft was despatched from the airfield and the Chile search and rescue were alerted. They found the glider on the hill side and Thomas was found to be alive but injured. Once he was stabilised by the paramedic crew he was taken aboard the helicopter to Santiago hospital.

Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident.
The news of Tomas death was relayed to the competitors and organisers at Vitacura a short time after the closing ceremony of the contest.

Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends during this tragic time.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[John Foster]

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 6:59:41 AM UTC-7, Paul Agnew wrote:
> From Facebook:
>
> Sad news from the last race day;
> Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.

Sad news indeed. Would be interested to learn more regarding what exactly happened. Condolences to his family and friends.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 12:25:34 PM UTC-5, John Foster wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 6:59:41 AM UTC-7, Paul Agnew wrote:
> > From Facebook:
> >
> > Sad news from the last race day;
> > Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.
>
> Sad news indeed. Would be interested to learn more regarding what exactly happened. Condolences to his family and friends.

Condolences to his family. Much too early for Tomas.

For anyone who flies in the mountain I suggest reading "Dancing with the Wind" by Jean-Marie Clement. There is a good section on safety of mountain flying, an eye opener.

[Duster[_2_]]

Tragic. Slight correction; I think Mr. Reich's contest id is ZZ, not GN (also according to his Facebook info). One can review the online tracker just before he moves beyond the FOV. Start @ 1:45:00 where ZZ appears to be moving to align with a CCW gaggle at an altitude similar to the others. You can see him make a correction, but instead of joining the group, he turns abruptly westerly beyond view. I don't think he re-appears after that, though there is data coming from his ship well forward of that timepoint.

https://youtu.be/LgR7KkNXyWI?t=6309

[[email protected]]

W dniu niedziela, 21 stycznia 2018 21:24:49 UTC+1 użytkownik Duster napisał:
> Tragic. Slight correction; I think Mr. Reich's contest id is ZZ, not GN (also according to his Facebook info). One can review the online tracker just before he moves beyond the FOV. Start @ 1:45:00 where ZZ appears to be moving to align with a CCW gaggle at an altitude similar to the others. You can see him make a correction, but instead of joining the group, he turns abruptly westerly beyond view. I don't think he re-appears after that, though there is data coming from his ship well forward of that timepoint.
>
> https://youtu.be/LgR7KkNXyWI?t=6309


76/5000

it happened when there was a break in the transmission - much closer to Santiago

[[email protected]]

Was the break in transmission perhaps not due to there being an accident? Is there a protocol to be followed during live transmissions in a situation like this?

[krasw]

Very sad news. Safety of WGC events has been appalling for decades and if you calculate accident rate / participants or flight hours in Grand Prix events, it must be at least tenfold, probably more. This is not acceptable, and still we accept it year after year. Yes it's beautiful, exhilarating and media-sexy to compete few meters from mountains but this is crazy. If they would have same accident rate in motorsports, events would be simply forbidden as too dangerous.

[AS]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 2:38:33 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> Very sad news. Safety of WGC events has been appalling for decades and if you calculate accident rate / participants or flight hours in Grand Prix events, it must be at least tenfold, probably more. This is not acceptable, and still we accept it year after year. Yes it's beautiful, exhilarating and media-sexy to compete few meters from mountains but this is crazy. If they would have same accident rate in motorsports, events would be simply forbidden as too dangerous.

Not knowing anything about the WGC safety related rules myself, what is it in their rules that makes WGC events more dangerous than others?
Uli
'AS'

[krasw]

On Monday, 22 January 2018 13:57:08 UTC+2, AS wrote:
>
> Not knowing anything about the WGC safety related rules myself, what is it in their rules that makes WGC events more dangerous than others?
> Uli
> 'AS'

Generally speaking it is outlanding accidents and midair collisions. 99% of the problem is poor judgement and unnecessary risk taking of pilots, every single accident is because "pilot error". Rules are not the problem, though probably there could be rules that penalize instead of reward risk taking..

[Andreas Maurer]

On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:38:29 -0800 (PST), krasw
> wrote:

>Very sad news. Safety of WGC events has been appalling for decades and if you calculate accident rate / participants or flight hours in Grand Prix events, it must be at least tenfold, probably more. This is not acceptable, and still we accept it year after year. Yes it's beautiful, exhilarating and media-sexy to compete few meters from mountains but this is crazy. If they would have same accident rate in motorsports, events would be simply forbidden as too dangerous.


Taking in count Klaus Kalmbach's accident (which was of the type that
usually ends fatal), the Chile Grand Prix had two extremely bad
accidents in a starter field od 20 pilots, that's one out of ten.



Glad that someone mentions that this accident rate is unacceptable.



Andreas

[[email protected]]

I'm also "glad" someone talks about it.

I really just can't stand those facebook and SGP posts about the celebrations, the beers and the contest about who's having the happiest closing party after watching the race online. Doesn't anyone of them know a human life was lost to his family?

GP gliding has proved more dangerous than WGC over the years. The loss of Herbert Weiss in NZ (please correct me if I'm wrong) was also followed by denial. Interviews were all about the excellent soaring and the sporting outcome of the final.

I have my own ideas or opinions as to why it is so dangerous. I've been flying 2 or 3 GPs in my life. My experience was of strong emotions I had never lived again (up to the GP) since childhood. The kind of "my friends are leaving me out" or "please wait for me I want to be a member of the group" sort of thing. I was surprised I felt strongly as an adult during a gliding competition.

This put a lot of pressure on me, and it's easy to predict that my decision making processes may be negatively affected. On the other hand, one might counter-argue that the placement point system easily leaves you at Zero points for the day, so the decision to just quit the race should in facts be easier.

In my opinion, while each pilot certainly is responsible for safety, a coaching system or a brief session with a "shrink" specialised in high-risk sports would be recommendable. Especially as the GP formula has failed to bring in sponsor money, and the remaining objective is that of a wider awareness of gliding as a competitive sport in the attention of the general public.

just my disappointed and sad 2cents.

Aldo Cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 10:53:31 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> I'm also "glad" someone talks about it.
>
> I really just can't stand those facebook and SGP posts about the celebrations, the beers and the contest about who's having the happiest closing party after watching the race online. Doesn't anyone of them know a human life was lost to his family?
>
> GP gliding has proved more dangerous than WGC over the years. The loss of Herbert Weiss in NZ (please correct me if I'm wrong) was also followed by denial. Interviews were all about the excellent soaring and the sporting outcome of the final.
>
> I have my own ideas or opinions as to why it is so dangerous. I've been flying 2 or 3 GPs in my life. My experience was of strong emotions I had never lived again (up to the GP) since childhood. The kind of "my friends are leaving me out" or "please wait for me I want to be a member of the group" sort of thing. I was surprised I felt strongly as an adult during a gliding competition.
>
> This put a lot of pressure on me, and it's easy to predict that my decision making processes may be negatively affected. On the other hand, one might counter-argue that the placement point system easily leaves you at Zero points for the day, so the decision to just quit the race should in facts be easier.
>
> In my opinion, while each pilot certainly is responsible for safety, a coaching system or a brief session with a "shrink" specialised in high-risk sports would be recommendable. Especially as the GP formula has failed to bring in sponsor money, and the remaining objective is that of a wider awareness of gliding as a competitive sport in the attention of the general public.
>
> just my disappointed and sad 2cents.
>
> Aldo Cernezzi
> www.voloavela.it

The way I read it, news of the disaster came later. No one celebrates such a costly win! At least I hope not.

best regards,
Evan Ludeman

[Kevin Christner]

It would seem GP scoring, by its nature, generates more risk than more traditional racing formats. One additional turn may cost 5 points out of 10 in GP but 1 point out of 1000 in a traditional format. Combine that with sending pilots over hostile terrain many are unfamiliar with and weak soaring conditions and you have a recipe for disaster.

On Monday, January 22, 2018 at 9:56:31 AM UTC-5, Andreas Maurer wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Jan 2018 23:38:29 -0800 (PST), krasw
> > wrote:
>
> >Very sad news. Safety of WGC events has been appalling for decades and if you calculate accident rate / participants or flight hours in Grand Prix events, it must be at least tenfold, probably more. This is not acceptable, and still we accept it year after year. Yes it's beautiful, exhilarating and media-sexy to compete few meters from mountains but this is crazy. If they would have same accident rate in motorsports, events would be simply forbidden as too dangerous.
>
>
> Taking in count Klaus Kalmbach's accident (which was of the type that
> usually ends fatal), the Chile Grand Prix had two extremely bad
> accidents in a starter field od 20 pilots, that's one out of ten.
>
>
>
> Glad that someone mentions that this accident rate is unacceptable.
>
>
>
> Andreas

[Branko Stojkovic]

This is terrible news! IGC needs to do something about safety at WGC and GP events, as well as at all other gliding contests!

For starters, IGC must establish a portal where reports and analyses of all accidents and incidents in all IGC sanctioned competitions will be posted, including the IGC files and including any corrective actions taken. The culture of sweeping the accidents and incidents under the carpet so that the organizers can claim that they had a successful competition needs to stop and that needs to happen very soon.

I have personal experience in these matters and I think that this tragic event is an opportunity to change the prevailing culture of downplaying and ignoring the dangers of our sport.

A year ago, as a Serbian team captain at WGC in Benalla I witnessed many unsafe events, including two midairs. I sat in a number of team captain's meetings and pilot's briefings where these events were discussed, but no concrete or decisive action was taken and no pilot was penalized for unsafe flying.

Back in 2014, during the last practice day before the WGC in Rayskala, Finland I myself, flying an Arcus-T, came frighteningly close to causing a major accident right at the Rayskala airfield in front of many onlookers. This accident, which I somehow managed to avoid, could have resulted in multiple injuries and/or fatalities. However, the psychological damage to the two of us inside the glider, and to the fellow glider pilots on the ground that we nearly crashed into, wasn't avoided. I reported the incident to the safety committee and submitted to them my IGC log file. I subsequently had a couple sessions with the safety committee members, in which we discussed what happened. After that, I was allowed to fly in the competition without any repercussions. The incident was never officially mentioned, let alone reviewed and analyzed.

Branko Stojkovic
XYU

[Dan Daly[_2_]]

They said in a news post on Jan 21 ( http://sgp.aero/finals2017/news_add_here/sgp-news/tomas-reich.aspx ) that they informed them after the prize-giving: "The news of Tomas death was relayed to the competitors and organisers at Vitacura a short time after the closing ceremony of the contest" so it sounds like no one there knew. They were probably watching the race to see if they could find out what happened - I would have too.

As for the accident during the practice period, they posted a video of the recovery on YouTube on Jan 14 and in the comments said: "We are delighted that Klaus is ok and recovering, probably partly due to the safety cockpit structure of his JS1 sailplane and the bushy area he hard landed in. We will keep you updated during and after the world GP Chile 2018."
They did mention during a grid walk video that the pilot was watching from his hospital bed and was awaiting medical flight back home, but nothing more was said...

On the YouTube commentary one contributor mentioned at one glider was damaged on the third last day on landing. I don't know if that happened (it wasn't reported), but the glider didn't fly the last two days.

Accident reporting, in my opinion, is important. I understand that it is difficult while trying to attract a wider audience, but being more open will prevent a reporter sensationalizing what would likely be termed 'an accident reporting cover-up'. In Kawa's book "Sky Full of Heat" p 76: "... when you read the accounts or official reports of accidents, you question yourself and consider what you would have done in a similar situation." Where are these accident reports for SGP? By the way, section 1.6 "Why are you still alive?" starting on p 72 of the English translation is a must-read.

I know FAI/IGC do some safety videos of problems seen in contests - I saw one when crewing at the first Pan American Glider Championships 2015 on a mid-air collision (didn't say which one; gliders were anonymized) at a previous level 1 or 2 competition. It is unfortunate that they don't release such videos for contest organizers to use for safety talks unless it is at a L1 or 2 contest (I asked). It would be valuable for FAI/IGC to create a public place where all the glider pilots could benefit from the accounts. These lessons are paid for with the blood of our friends.

[Paul T[_4_]]

At 16:57 22 January 2018, Branko Stojkovic wrote:
>This is terrible news! IGC needs to do something about safety at
WGC and
>GP=
> events, as well as at all other gliding contests!
>
>For starters, IGC must establish a portal where reports and
analyses of
>all=
> accidents and incidents in all IGC sanctioned competitions will be
>posted,=
> including the IGC files and including any corrective actions taken.
The
>cu=
>lture of sweeping the accidents and incidents under the carpet so
that the
>=
>organizers can claim that they had a successful competition needs
to stop
>a=
>nd that needs to happen very soon.
>
>I have personal experience in these matters and I think that this
tragic
>ev=
>ent is an opportunity to change the prevailing culture of
downplaying and
>i=
>gnoring the dangers of our sport.
>
>A year ago, as a Serbian team captain at WGC in Benalla I
witnessed many
>un=
>safe events, including two midairs. I sat in a number of team
captain's
>mee=
>tings and pilot's briefings where these events were discussed, but
no
>concr=
>ete or decisive action was taken and no pilot was penalized for
unsafe
>flyi=
>ng.
>
>Back in 2014, during the last practice day before the WGC in
Rayskala,
>Finl=
>and I myself, flying an Arcus-T, came frighteningly close to causing
a
>majo=
>r accident right at the Rayskala airfield in front of many onlookers.
This
>=
>accident, which I somehow managed to avoid, could have resulted
in
>multiple=
> injuries and/or fatalities. However, the psychological damage to
the two
>o=
>f us inside the glider, and to the fellow glider pilots on the ground
that
>=
>we nearly crashed into, wasn't avoided. I reported the incident to
the
>safe=
>ty committee and submitted to them my IGC log file. I
subsequently had a
>co=
>uple sessions with the safety committee members, in which we
discussed
>what=
> happened. After that, I was allowed to fly in the competition
without any
>=
>repercussions. The incident was never officially mentioned, let
alone
>revie=
>wed and analyzed.
>
>Branko Stojkovic
>XYU


The radio commentary on the last SGP task was interesting -
especially from the Chilean commentator. 'We don't fly in that area
so low' or similar words where repeated a number of times for the
southern portion of the task.

Whether this is related to the accident or not I do not know - but it
certainly seemed boundaries where being pushed a little during that
task.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I hardly know what to say. I just wanted to say something as I watched the entire race, knew all the competitors names. To the family and friends of Tomas Reich, I know how mere words will always be inadequate, to express grief, of a loved one lost. I do humbly offer my prayers and wishes that soon, time will assuage your grief over the loss of Tomas, and will leave you with cherished memories of times shared and the opportunity to have known him and share the same air, time and place.

After having suffered multiple losses of loved ones over that last few years, I can tell you how important is to get to a place where you smile when you think of a lost love one


On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 5:59:41 AM UTC-8, Paul Agnew wrote:
> From Facebook:
>
> Sad news from the last race day;
> Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

I hardly know what to say. I just wanted to say something as I watched the entire race, knew all the competitors names. To the family and friends of Tomas Reich, I know how mere words will always be inadequate, to express grief, of a loved one lost. I do humbly offer my prayers and wishes that soon, time will assuage your grief over the loss of Tomas, and will leave you with cherished memories of times shared and the opportunity to have known him and share the same air, time and place.


On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 5:59:41 AM UTC-8, Paul Agnew wrote:
> From Facebook:
>
> Sad news from the last race day;
> Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.

[krasw]

So far work for improving safety in WGC events has realized in endless safety briefings before each competition day. Same chant goes on forever, "look outside, do not cut each other in thermal, do this, don't do that". After this, everybody goes to fly the task EXACTLY same way as always.

Sometimes one has to wonder what goes on in pilots minds. For example, I find thermal and start turning, after few turns fellow competitor joins same thermal and starts circling to opposite direction at same altitude. And this happens time and time again. They see you all the time and apparently decide that "let's collide with that glider right here and now". And this is just one small example of problems involving gaggle flying. Luckily one doesn't have to witness all the stupidity of involved flying at treetop level instead of landing out.

All this goes on forever, until there is rule that prevent stupidity, way of controlling the rule, and penalty. It takes all of these three components, if one is missing, we have useless rule.

[BobW]

On 1/22/2018 11:50 AM, krasw wrote:
> So far work for improving safety in WGC events has realized in endless
> safety briefings before each competition day. Same chant goes on forever,
> "look outside, do not cut each other in thermal, do this, don't do that".
> After this, everybody goes to fly the task EXACTLY same way as always.
>
> Sometimes one has to wonder what goes on in pilots minds. For example, I
> find thermal and start turning, after few turns fellow competitor joins
> same thermal and starts circling to opposite direction at same altitude.
> And this happens time and time again. They see you all the time and
> apparently decide that "let's collide with that glider right here and now".
> And this is just one small example of problems involving gaggle flying.
> Luckily one doesn't have to witness all the stupidity of involved flying at
> treetop level instead of landing out.
>
> All this goes on forever, until there is rule that prevent stupidity, way
> of controlling the rule, and penalty. It takes all of these three
> components, if one is missing, we have useless rule.

My sincere condolences to everyone grieving for Mr. Reich, particularly his
family and personal friends.

At the risk of offending the Thread-drift Police, I'll add my "+1" to the
general message in the above post, and, emphasize the "universal truth" noted
in its final paragraph.

Way back when I was a vastly experienced soaring tyro flying my first
"semi-real contest," I independently came to krasw's conclusion expressed in
that final paragraph.

It took me two days to do so. The contest's pilot briefings hammered home two
flight safety rules each morning: 1) left-turns-only within 5 miles of the
launch airport; 2) thermal the same direction "everywhere." (From a
mid-air-prevention collision perspective, it would seem difficult to get more
"basically 'Duh!'" than that, IMO.) On Day 1, in my release thermal (at the
designated release point more or less directly atop the launch airfield), I
watched a guy join at my altitude and begin thermalling to his right; I left
to find another thermal. On Day 2 no one spoke up in the AM safety briefing
about the issue (which I'd noted was not isolated to the instance claimed
above)...and I experienced it again on Day 2. Again, no one spoke up on Day
3's safety review. (My 'excuse' for remaining mute was I felt intimidated,
being the new kid on the block...though [among other things] the sheer
brazenness displayed by the offending pilot[s?] appalled me.)

The circumstances troubled me sufficiently that, after the contest, I phoned
the person who'd introduced me to the sport, and who'd by then flown several
national contests, to ask: Was my experience normal at "real contests" too?
His response was a quiet chuckle followed by a comment to the effect that in
his experience it was. (He even volunteered one repeat offender's name; that
same alleged culprit continued to fly U.S. nationals for the next
quarter-century-plus.)

And while my experience noted above wasn't the sole reason for voting with my
contest-participating-feet - I found I simply enjoyed flying on my own
considerably more - it certainly was a big part of that being the last "real
contest" in which I participated.

Ideas have consequences, and the idea of actually being able to hold - and
holding - people accountable for their actions is an important one.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[[email protected]]

please read this: http://soaring.eu/?p=20949


Large part of last accidents was playing in poor weather conditions.

[[email protected]]

I do not race and never will so excuse my ignorance but is there not a penalty for circling the "wrong" way in a thermal? It would seem that it would be fairly easy to catch offenders via logs.

[krasw]

On Tuesday, 23 January 2018 14:45:13 UTC+2, wrote:
> I do not race and never will so excuse my ignorance but is there not a penalty for circling the "wrong" way in a thermal? It would seem that it would be fairly easy to catch offenders via logs.

True, and there is penalty for "hazardous flying". I have yet to see it enforced in situations like this. One can always say that one did not see the other guy (like it is ok if you do not watch out of the cockpit). Only soft measures (more lenghty safety lectures) are used, which are huge waist of everyone's time. You would have to make a loop in front of competition director's eyes at treetop level to get "hazardous flying" penalty. Unless of course you fly in a country where it is normal, and you are actually expected to make stunts low over airfield.

[Tony[_5_]]

There was a hazardous flying penalty at the JWGC: https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jwgc2017/results/club/task-7-on-2017-08-09/daily

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 7:28:36 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
> There was a hazardous flying penalty at the JWGC: https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jwgc2017/results/club/task-7-on-2017-08-09/daily

A competitor was sent home some years ago from a Nationals in Minden NV after repeated "hazardous flying". If enough pilots complain, this can be dealt with.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 1/23/2018 7:03 AM, wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 7:28:36 AM UTC-6, Tony wrote:
>> There was a hazardous flying penalty at the JWGC:
>> https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/jwgc2017/results/club/task-7-on-2017-08-09/daily
>
>>
> A competitor was sent home some years ago from a Nationals in Minden NV
> after repeated "hazardous flying". If enough pilots complain, this can be
> dealt with.

Simply because I find this particular aspect of soaring/human nature
personally fascinating - and not because I have a horse in this race (I do
not) - I'll note that an argument can be made that but 2 "hard examples" over
several decades'-worth of international contests, makes a better case for the
*absence* of (consistent? rigorous? etc.) enforcement of this particular
aspect of contest flying as "easily visible from ground organizers'
perspectives," than it does for an absence of "unsafe flying incidents."

I remember when both examples cited above came to my "print attention" (the
former via the web and the latter via SSA's "Soaring" magazine). From my
perspective, no "obvious informational followup" from either source. (One
might also reasonably argue that lack of "press followup" is part of the
underlying issue as well.)

I suspect Herb K.'s post-ending assertion is accurate, though likely to be
"seriously inertially resisted" by organizers (and many competitors) for a
small host of easily identifiable, human-nature-based, rationales, including
(though not limited to): desire to avoid confrontation; fear of reducing
perceived minimal contest participation (a sword that cuts two ways);
"unfairness/judgmental/etc." complaints; ad-hominem responses; etc.

To the extent that soaring contests are democratic in their rules development
and enforcement, I'll put my money on nothing much changing on this particular
front in the near future...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 4:45:13 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> I do not race and never will so excuse my ignorance but is there not a penalty for circling the "wrong" way in a thermal? It would seem that it would be fairly easy to catch offenders via logs.

There are technological solutions for at least some infractions. With Flarm, you can no longer claim "I didn't see him" in a thermal - the glider will appear on your tactical display as well as his flight path and circling direction. Log files can automatically be examined to see who arrived first and who went the wrong way. There will be cases that are judgement calls, but most of them will be blatant. Second, low terrain clearance can be mostly solved with a hard floor. In the past difficult to comply with, but with modern tactical computers very easy. We already have a hard ceiling. There are pilots who hate the idea, these are usually the pilots that want to win with a low save that no one else believes was worth the risk. A hard floor is not detrimental at all to measuring soaring skill, though greatly detrimental to measuring risk tolerance.

[Muttley]

I would suggest to look again at the Final Video of the SGP http://www.sgp.aero/finals2017.aspx?contestID=30819 with various pilot interviews. Taking away all the niceties they were saying about the place there are also some underlying uncertainty and comments which would worry me. M. Tingey at 3.09 (frightening) and S.Kawa at 6.10 (Scared). In my book both of these could mean trouble and it either takes skill or luck to get out of these situations.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Deepest condolences to family and friends. I have lost more friends in glider accidents than any other cause. I hope that a respectful discussion of safety issues in the wake of a tragic loss doesn't offend anyone.

In my experience, human behavior is a big consideration when looking at safety issues in glider racing.

First, unsafe flying penalties are rarely called, and only for the most egregious acts. Contest officials don't want to be in the position of determining contest placing based on penalties so they explicitly ask for rules that aren't subject to interpretation - or better yet, are calculated by scoring software. Unsafe flying is usually pretty subjective. Finishes are a classic case. Coming in low and cutting in front of gliders in the pattern or otherwise disrupting the well-being of other pilots rarely (if ever - I can't think of a case) gets called, so we are left speculating about the minimum safe finish heights to commit to the rules.

Second, humans are terrible at assessing low probability (but catastrophic) events and they are very good at rationalizing. A decision with a 10% chance of killing you will work out 9 times out of 10. If getting away with one encourages pilots to keep pushing the limit the eventual outcome will be predictable, but many pilots seem to feel the risk is acceptably low right up to the end.

Third, competition encourages everyone to push their limits and boundaries. I think the SGP format accentuates that tendency in two ways: 1) The head-to-head nature of the race makes it crystal clear where you stand and 2) the scoring system based on place rather than time makes every fraction of a second count (as has been pointed out and was evidenced on several days with split-second finishes). This certainly adds to the thrill, but has predictable behavioral implications.

I hear a lot that each pilot-in-command is responsible for their own fate (that's tautologically true) and that we should let pilots set their own safety limits with unsafe flying penalties only for obviously unsafe or illegal acts of piloting. I just think we are kidding ourselves when we attempt to assert that how we set the game up doesn't (or can't) materially influence the degree of carnage we witness at the end of the day.

There are also factors related to tasking, which are difficult to deal with explicitly in the way we set up the rules, penalties and scoring (weak weather, long hours in the cockpit over multiple days, difficult terrain, thunderstorms, etc.). Here too behavioral considerations factor in (needing/wanting to get in a contest day, pressure from pilots, etc.). We can try to deal with this via exhortations for responsible individual behavior, but maybe there is more to think about.

Respectfully.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[MNLou]

I do want to give a "shout out" to the CDs and Contest Managers I have had to pleasure to work with.

At every contest I've been at (6), safety was emphasized repeatedly. If there was a safety related issue, either in the air or on the ground, you could either 1) talk to the CD directly and / or 2) file an anonymous written complaint.

If a pilot is guilty of creating a hazardous situation, the CD has a number of options available to deal with the situation.

In one specific incident, the CD and one other person had already reviewed the flight traces before talking to the involved pilots.

I, for one, never want to have a CD seek me out to have a safety related discussion.

Lou

[Michael Opitz]

>There are technological solutions for at least some infractions. With
>Flarm=
>, you can no longer claim "I didn't see him" in a thermal - the
glider
>will=
> appear on your tactical display as well as his flight path and
circling
>di=
>rection. Log files can automatically be examined to see who arrived
first
>a=
>nd who went the wrong way. There will be cases that are
judgement calls,
>bu=
>t most of them will be blatant. Second, low terrain clearance can
be
>mostly=
> solved with a hard floor. In the past difficult to comply with, but
with
>m=
>odern tactical computers very easy. We already have a hard
ceiling. There
>a=
>re pilots who hate the idea, these are usually the pilots that want
to win
>=
>with a low save that no one else believes was worth the risk. A
hard floor
>=
>is not detrimental at all to measuring soaring skill, though greatly
>detrim=
>ental to measuring risk tolerance.


You must be a "flatlander". What you propose may work in non-
mountainous areas, but the way the lift works in the bigger
mountains is that the rising air clings to the rock faces in very thin
sheets until it reaches a peak (or other physical trigger point) where
it breaks free to form a thermal column. So, anytime one is below
the peak, the reality is that one must fly very close to the terrain in
order to stay in that thin sheet of rising air until one climbs high
enough above said mountain to circle safely. Your "hard floor" would
be impossible to use at a mountainous site. All glider contests
would have to be held over flat terrain. Good luck with that one.

I got my first introduction to other pilot's WGC antics during
practice at Rieti in 1985. There was a pre-start gaggle of maybe
20-30 gliders circling left above the top of a mountain peak that
had a vertical sheer rock face that went maybe 300 meters from
the summit down. This was close enough to the airport so that
the location was within the "exclusively left hand turn" zone. I
joined the gaggle at the bottom (and turning left) with maybe
only 20 meters clearance over the peak. Then, in comes pilot
X about 5 meters below me, and lo and behold, he starts turning
RIGHT basically meeting me head-on. After one or two turns, I
left to find lift elsewhere because pilot X refused to turn left like
everyone else was doing. After the flight, I was livid and asked
my team captain to approach the captain of pilot X's team about
this unsafe flying. The answer I got back was that "pilot X thought
that there was enough space". No apologies, nothing. Worse yet
was that team X was staying in our hotel, and pilot X had previously
approached us during dinner to see what info he could gain info
about parts of the task area that he had not been to yet. I had
been friendly and had told him what I had seen. Pilot X had the
gall to come up to me after the flying incident wanting more info
and "help" from me. He didn't get it from me, but much to my
consternation, he did win a WGC in a subsequent year.... And so it
goes... Yes, there is some crazy (stupid) stuff that goes on at this
level. Tom Beltz had told me before I left that I needed to be
careful and watch out. Boy, was he ever right....

RO

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 1:15:07 PM UTC-8, Michael Opitz wrote:

> You must be a "flatlander". What you propose may work in non-
> mountainous areas, but the way the lift works in the bigger
> mountains is that the rising air clings to the rock faces in very thin
> sheets until it reaches a peak (or other physical trigger point) where
> it breaks free to form a thermal column. So, anytime one is below
> the peak, the reality is that one must fly very close to the terrain in
> order to stay in that thin sheet of rising air until one climbs high
> enough above said mountain to circle safely. Your "hard floor" would
> be impossible to use at a mountainous site. All glider contests
> would have to be held over flat terrain. Good luck with that one.
>
> RO

I agree. There's been lots of discussion and analysis of how to deal with this. I see no practical way to enforce a "terrain proximity" limit at mountain sites where it's common for pilots to scrape little thermals off of steep slopes. The ridge at Logan, UT is the prototypical example. Mifflin and New Castle are examples, but not as extreme. It is theoretically possible to calculate altitude above some sort of "local valley arrival" altitude, but probably not in a way that would be reliably obvious to a pilot in the cockpit for decision-making purposes. What's worse than getting home only to realize when the scores come out that you got landed out 150 miles ago?

While flight into terrain out on course (stall/spin or while attempting an outlining) is the leading flight mode for accidents at contests I just don't see a practical penalty incentive system. The big incentive to digging out of a hole is to get home, even of all points are lost, and the decisions that get you into a hole are often 30-40 miles back on course so the effectiveness of a hard deck in prevention would likely be fairly limited, even if you could find a way to implement it.

BTW, Jon flies (quite well at the last R11) the Sierras so he's been to the mountains a lot.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

For lack of perfection we don't fix the 99%?

It is true, a hard deck cannot stop pilots who are ridge soaring from crashing into the mountain. But this is a tiny fraction of contest crashes. The vast majority of contest crashes are botched outlandings, caused by attempts to keep racing at insanely low altitudes. Past ssa contest safety reports had traces from US contests with pilots initiating 360 degree turns at 150 feet.

We cannot stop pilots from doing this, but it is certainly easy enough to not give contest points for it, even in the mountains, and thus remove some of the contest temptation and necessity of such flying. One is simply "landed out" at about 500 feet AGL. That can be implemented with a set of SUA files giving minimum altitudes. The minimum altitude is approximately 500 feet in 500 foot steps, over the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out.. The SUA can stop short of the ridge in places where a ridge can be safely flown less than 500 feet above the valley floor. Our glide computers and scoring programs all easily handle forbidden airspace.

It's technically straightforward. Bring this up in any pilots meeting, and prepare to be hooted down as a "safety nazi" or other unpleasant accusations. I have had pilots screaming and swearing at me for this kind of suggestion. Somehow that if I give up the option of beating you by thermaling at 300 feet, I force you to give up the option of beating me by thermaling at 300 feet does not occur to many pilots. Or perhaps if any of us really recognized how prone to temptations we all are, especially with contests on the line, we wouldn't be flying contests in the first place! Much easier to mutter "well, I'd never do something that dumb" in the back of the funeral.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

Mountain flying is different, no floor system would work.
The terrain in Chile is not so easy, I am sure the tasking is also difficult to juggle all issues.
Regarding hazardous pilots, two of the most dangerous pilots I have flown against (at previous WGCs and two SGPs) were in Chile at that comp.
They have been talked to over and over. (Not involved in the accident)
Tom
....

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 1/23/2018 12:16 PM, Andy Blackburn wrote:

<Snip...>

> In my experience, human behavior is a big consideration when looking at
> safety issues in glider racing.

+1...it's elephant-in-the room YUGE!!!

<Some insightful stuff snipped...>

> I hear a lot that each pilot-in-command is responsible for their own fate
> (that's tautologically true) and that we should let pilots set their own
> safety limits with unsafe flying penalties only for obviously unsafe or
> illegal acts of piloting. I just think we are kidding ourselves when we
> attempt to assert that how we set the game up doesn't (or can't) materially
> influence the degree of carnage we witness at the end of the day.

Spot on. By way of example, I'd be hard pressed to imagine a form of soaring
competition *better* designed to encourage pilots to thin their margins in
mountainous terrain than SGP racing. That's not intended to rain on SGP's
parade in any way, but "merely" to be a personal observation based on my
assessment of the meld of human nature, SGP scoring methodology and the nature
of "energy-/speed-based" sailplane competition...a "nature of the beast" sort
of observation, if you will.

> There are also factors related to tasking, which are difficult to deal with
> explicitly in the way we set up the rules, penalties and scoring (weak
> weather, long hours in the cockpit over multiple days, difficult terrain,
> thunderstorms, etc.). Here too behavioral considerations factor in
> (needing/wanting to get in a contest day, pressure from pilots, etc.). We
> can try to deal with this via exhortations for responsible individual
> behavior, but maybe there is more to think about.
IMHO there IS (a lot!) more to think about. Without intending to drift off
into soaring's "philosophical cosmos," it's clear to me competition soaring
has evolved away from the basics it once sought to measure/demonstrate, i.e.
staying up, height for height's sake, going great distances, etc., to
something beyond "course-based speed measurement" of a pilot's soaring skills.
Throughout that competitive evolution - as with many (every?) enthusiast based
competitive exercises - it's always had an element of proselytizing about it.
Enthusiasts of anything are always eager to show potential would-be
enthusiasts what they may be missing by not participating in the underlying
activity. Soaring has never been unique on this front, though the apparent
reality of its growth worldwide being at best stagnant, arguably adds urgency
to soaring's proselytizing efforts. Has SGP gone "too far?"

SGP can viewed as an attempt to commercialize sailplane racing by ginning up
some flavor of competition potentially attractive to the masses (and
sponsors). When I try to imagine "mass attraction" succeeding beyond SGP
originator's wildest hopes, it's not clear to me where on the spectrum from
"bad" to "aweseomely good!" such an eventuality would be. (Most likely, it
would depend upon one's perspective.) I happen to believe an expansion of
potential soaring avenues - "expansion-driven balkanization" you might say -
would in general be "sportively healthy." Choice is good in my view, e.g. the
marketplace presently supports engineless and increasing flavors of engined
sailplanes, different avenues of competition continue to evolve, clubs and
commercial soaring FBOs co-exist (often on the same airport), etc.

My guess is as things presently are, the sport as a whole will be unlikely to
continue to be able to support "SGP-like" racing as a viable activity except
as a small, specialty event. Assuming SGP continues for the foreseeable
future, and given human nature, I can't see any way to substantively change
the human-nature-based incentives and risks inherent to it short of avoiding
mountain venues. In any event, I don't see potential sponsors lining up to
throw money at *any* "potential death sport" in today's society (think auto
racing), and even were that no factor, soaring's lengthy learning curve is its
own exclusionary reality. I guess where this sort of speculation leads me to
is the thought: let's enjoy SGP while we can; treasure the company of your
fellow soaring pilots for as long as you and they are here; and strive
mightily to avoid zero-margin situations. And - sigh - be prepared for the worst.

Bob - mostly Rocky Mountain hours - W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 4:58:53 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> The minimum altitude is approximately 500 feet in 500 foot steps, over the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out. The SUA can stop short of the ridge in places where a ridge can be safely flown less than 500 feet above the valley floor. Our glide computers and scoring programs all easily handle forbidden airspace.
>
> It's technically straightforward.

I dunno. I tried to do this - literally - with a topo map of the Logan task area back a few years ago. There is enough rolling terrain, "local" (and sometimes totally unlandable) valleys, escarpments and some long, long glides out to slowly descending valleys that it became quite complicated to figure out. I fly plenty of places where the landouts are "35 miles that-a-way" and where the landable fields might be several hundred feet higher than the valley floors which are riverbeds or washes or canyons. Sure, you could smooth it all out by going higher, but now your technical landout is much higher above the field your circling over.

My broader observation is a more fundamental one of behavior. The decisions pilots make that get them low are typically made tens of miles back on course, so the fine distinction of getting landed out 150' higher than they would commit to land anyway would do little to prevent them getting into the hole in the first place. Moreover, once low and stuck the motive pretty quickly shifts from points to getting home. The incremental points incentive to circle at 300' is small compared to the overall convenience incentive to avoid a ground retrieve. I suppose any reduction in incentive to circle low can be viewed as good, but it's not without a cost of complexity, so one might legitimately weigh one against the other.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 5:58:21 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 4:58:53 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > The minimum altitude is approximately 500 feet in 500 foot steps, over the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out. The SUA can stop short of the ridge in places where a ridge can be safely flown less than 500 feet above the valley floor. Our glide computers and scoring programs all easily handle forbidden airspace.
> >
> > It's technically straightforward.
>
> I dunno. I tried to do this - literally - with a topo map of the Logan task area back a few years ago. There is enough rolling terrain, "local" (and sometimes totally unlandable) valleys, escarpments and some long, long glides out to slowly descending valleys that it became quite complicated to figure out. I fly plenty of places where the landouts are "35 miles that-a-way" and where the landable fields might be several hundred feet higher than the valley floors which are riverbeds or washes or canyons. Sure, you could smooth it all out by going higher, but now your technical landout is much higher above the field your circling over.
>
> My broader observation is a more fundamental one of behavior. The decisions pilots make that get them low are typically made tens of miles back on course, so the fine distinction of getting landed out 150' higher than they would commit to land anyway would do little to prevent them getting into the hole in the first place. Moreover, once low and stuck the motive pretty quickly shifts from points to getting home. The incremental points incentive to circle at 300' is small compared to the overall convenience incentive to avoid a ground retrieve. I suppose any reduction in incentive to circle low can be viewed as good, but it's not without a cost of complexity, so one might legitimately weigh one against the other.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

I fly almost exclusively in mountain areas. As John said, keeping people from flying into a ridge may be difficult, but keeping them from generally flying low in unlandable terrain seems quite technically possible, at least where I fly. A very good contest can be held always within safe gliding range of a landable airport and the contour map required rather rudimentary. Certainly there are ridges and mountains sticking through that a pilot must miss, but the temptation to get low in unlandable would be removed.

The fact is we already fly with a hard deck - the earth. The penalty for violating it is injury or death. Contests sometimes reward your tolerance for reducing safety margins to less than needed, as accident reports prove. Raising that hard deck to a virtual one does no harm to competition and eliminates risk taking as a means to the podium.

[[email protected]]

I think we can all agree that "racing" of any ilk (cars, motorcycles, airplanes, gliders) is inherently riskier than recreational use of these vehicles. Racing implies that limits will be pushed, risks will be taken, consequences will be underestimated and judgment might be suspended for a risk/reward scenario where an advantage might be gained or a poor position might be improved by momentarily taking a dangerous chance with a better than even chance at a successful outcome.

The penalties for making a bad call are extreme in the gliding world, especially when racing low and fast close to a ridge, taking advantage of the prevailing upslope lift found in (as Andy Blackburn accurately described) "thin sheets" close to the ridge. At SGP speeds (or Appalachian ridge, or Alps or other places), running close to the terrain is flat out risky. Add in complicated topography and designated turnpoints with some other competitor only a hundred meters ahead (but 25 meters higher) and it might become a fatal error to go for it as opposed to thinking out your OWN flight plan rather than sticking with another competitor just to not lose him.

George Moffatt famously said, "There is no variometer like another sailplane." Very true, but Terra Firma cannot be ignored. If the guy ahead of you has calculated that he will clear a ridge with 20 meters, you are in a pretty bad place if you happen to be 25 meters lower.

I don't compete in sailplanes, but I have raced cars, motorcycles and everything else I could get my testosterone filled head inside, at least until I discovered that desire alone does not make up for judgment and lack of talent. And the "psych-out games" some competitors bring to almost any racing sport are not my cup of tea (or beer or whatever).

I think I got this revelation back in 1979 at a hang gliding competition in the Owens Valley (1979 Owens X-C Classic), when one of the more pompous, bombastic and generally annoying competitors loudly proclaimed to all and sundry at the Pilots Meeting, "You can try to WIN this contest, or you can try to stay alive!"

I was happy to be a back marker, while the talented (and the fools) disappeared into the distance.

[Tango Eight]

There are three scenarios I know of that are important in mountain flying accidents.

1. Controlled flight into terrain. Trying to squeak through a pass or over a ridgeline, or hooking a tree with a wingtip.

2. Loss of control without margin to recover (Henry Coomb's "Sinister Trap", see Soaring 9/84).

3. Failure to maintain margin to a landable field.

When the glider ends up on the mountain, it's scenario #1 or 2. In the valley, #3. Is one scenario more "important" than the others? Not really, we've lost friends to all three.

A hard deck designed to address #1 &/or #2 will be objectionable to guys that routinely fly within a wingspan or two of mountains. A hard deck can't really address #3 in an effective way.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Jonathon May]

At 05:17 24 January 2018, Tango Eight wrote:
>There are three scenarios I know of that are important in mountain flying
>accidents.
>
>1. Controlled flight into terrain. Trying to squeak through a pass or
>over a ridgeline, or hooking a tree with a wingtip.
>
>2. Loss of control without margin to recover (Henry Coomb's "Sinister
>Trap", see Soaring 9/84).
>
>3. Failure to maintain margin to a landable field.
>
>When the glider ends up on the mountain, it's scenario #1 or 2. In the
>valley, #3. Is one scenario more "important" than the others? Not
really,
>we've lost friends to all three.
>
>A hard deck designed to address #1 &/or #2 will be objectionable to guys
>that routinely fly within a wingspan or two of mountains. A hard deck
>can't really address #3 in an effective way.
>
>Evan Ludeman / T8
>
>
>

First my condolences

Like many I watched the live uplink until the transmission break and
because the only competitor I have met was Tillo H I was watching him and
trying to see his strategy. He seemed to be "down slope " I wasn't sure if
he was trying something different ,or he just loved his family and wanted
to be that bit nearer to a landable field.
Its very easy to follow the leaders even SGP pilots have hero s but in a
world where 5M lower can leave you in a place with no "get out of jail free
card" the price can be higher than you think.
A very sad end to a spectacular event ,but you have to ask
Did they all know what risks they were taking,or were some following and
letting others gauge the risk.

[[email protected]]

With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.

Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.

As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.

As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!

[krasw]

keskiviikko 24. tammikuuta 2018 14.57.36 UTC+2 kirjoitti:
> With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.
>
> Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.
>
> As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.
>
> As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!


I have lost a friend in gliding competition accident, and I know people who have competed for decades losing 10-20% of their pilot friends to accidents over the years (yes it is absolutely unbelievable, but true). So I care, and I know that others do too, while you may not. No-one flies competitions making decisions whether to "live or die". We try to find out who is the best athlete without risking our lives. There are rules that dictate how we measure performance, and then there should be rules that prevent us from doing something stupid in the heat of race. If pilots are allowed to take a risk to get more points, they do it way too often, and job of rules is to make sure that no more points are given at that point. Hard floor is excellent idea, at least in flatlands. If you watch Formula 1 car racing, they have hectares of gravel around the curves in case you loose control of the car, instead of stone wall (which we quite literally have). That's because they accept that mistakes are made, and control (with rules concerning circuits) what happens if you make a mistake. In 50's drivers ended up in fireball. Our sport has not progressed much.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 7:57:36 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.
>
> Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.
>
> As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.
>
> As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!

From my own experience, which includes 40 years or so of competition from regional to WGC, I can relate my observations of my own behavior. I expect I am not much different than most other competitors.
When the event is of high importance and visibility one is more likely to accept higher risk. This can, and sometimes does, mean "temporarily" suspending hard safety boundaries to continue a flight or try to get a big score.
The trap is "temporarily", when repeated, can move toward habitual. We see this all the time with pilots that fly low patterns. They accept a known risk and it becomes their "normal" behavior. Pushing a bit beyond does not trigger alarm bells.
This is quite common in ridge and mountain flying. Acceptance of low energy flying near terrain becomes too easy.
I am an example of that trap. I became "Admiral Nixon" in 1999 by allowing myself to push too far into the boundaries while leading in the 18M nationals and ended up landing in a lake. That was embarrassing, but it could well have been much worse. At the time I had made over 9000 safe flights, yet I allowed myself to be seduced by temptation into breaking my own safety rules.
At the WGC in Musbach I made 3 final glides, one almost 50km, with a total margin above Macready 0 of about 200 feet. There were landable options on all 3 in the last bit before the airport. All of them worked. I never would have made all those that way if I was not in the WGC.
Applying my own experience to what I expect flying in the GP, in the mountains, is like, I can see how many would be likely to take risks they never would flying at home.
I don't see any realistic way to prevent this with rules.
It is mostly about trying to create a culture that makes it OK to quit when things aren't working. Karol has voiced it the best.
Some choose to avoid the trap by not participating. A good choice for them.
I'm glad I get to play this game and hope some introspection can cause some thought among pilots that could prevent the next tragedy. When the risk alarm bell goes off- listen and heed it.
Respectfully
UH

[[email protected]]

UH very well said, thanks for a well thought summary.

Krasn states:
"No-one flies competitions making decisions whether to "live or die". We try to find out who is the best athlete without risking our lives. There are rules that dictate how we measure performance, and then there should be rules that prevent us from doing something stupid in the heat of race."
I think this mentality that Krasn presents that is the very problem right here. In reality we DO make decisions minute by minute regarding life and death during a task. How close to thermal next to a ridge, how close do I get to that guy in a thermal, do I want to exit this gaggle cause there is a crazy guy thermalling in there, how close do I cut this final glide, etc etc. these are ALL life and death decisions. When a guy has this fact in mind, then it acts as a natural "tempering" to the dangerous "gotta win at all costs" mentality that wants to spring up during a race.

The very fact that you are looking to rule makers to dictate how safe you fly is what creates the problem in the first place. This "nanny state" mentality is actually creating the problem, where guys think if they follow the published rules then they are flying "safe". How wrong we have seen this to be.

Place as many "disinsentives" to unsafe flying as you like in the rules and guys will still be running into ridges, stall/spinning and acting crazy in a gaggle. Once again, it is personal decision making and personal limits that create safety. It is an INTERNAL issue (mindset), not an external (rules) one.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

We have rules against cloud flying, rules against flying in controlled airspace, rules to thermal in the same direction, rules about how to fly an approach pattern, rules against flying under the influence of drugs or alcohol (FAI rules even have a special penalty for second offense), minimum finish height rules. Are these all unnecessary “nanny state� wastes of space?

I’d stop racing if I thought that every contest I attended was going to include a choice to significantly risk my life versus withdraw from the competition. I’m thankful there are people willing to contemplate the interplay between how we structure competition, human behavior and the most likely causes of death or injury.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Muttley]

In 2010 a paper on Gliding Safety was made by an Ostiv Member as a Guideline for the IGC to Improve Safety especially during competitions.

http://journals.sfu.ca/ts/index.php/ts/article/viewFile/59/53

one figure struck me in particular is that your chances of having a mishap - accident are 10times higher during a competition as proved by the statistics.

IGC has implemented some of the recommendations put unfortunately not all of them and is very slow to even enforce the rules.

I was involved on a administrative level on a European competition in the French Alps. It was obvious after a few days flying that we had some wastly inexpierenced pilots taking part and each Team Captains meeting we spend most of the time explaining the basic rules of mountain flying instead of taking the action required i.e. stopping these pilots from continuing flying. One mistake was that the Organisation did not demand an account of mounting flying experience from the Pilots nor did their National Organisation which submitted the entries. One reason for this is that they would probably end up with a very small Entry of sufficently qualified Pilots. Sadly the Competition ended up with one fatality which may or may not have been avoidable.

[[email protected]]

I’d stop racing if I thought that every contest I attended was going to include a choice to significantly risk my life versus withdraw from the competition

Andy, this is the exact point. It is YOUR choice whether to take the risk or not. You don't have to withdraw from the contest, you just don't win on that day but you stay alive and fly according to your own set of "minimums". Do contests award risk taking? Absolutely, they always have and always will. Should contests award risk taking? Probably not but there is no way to fully legislate risk-reward out of the system.

Yes some rules are common sense based, no IFR/cloud flying, circle same direction in gaggle, alt floor for finishes, but a look at this and many other accidents reveals they DID NOT involve any current rules, they involved poor judgement. How do you legislate out poor judgement? We have partially done this but it will be impossible to cover every contingency encountered.

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 4:57:36 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> With all respect to the many insitefull comments posted here, and acknowledging the loss of any loved one is always a tragedy, developing layer upon endless layer of rules will never end the fact that there will always be fatalities in this and every "racing" sport.
>
> Human nature is not going to change, irregardless of legislation. Guys will push to the edge and over whatever "safety" regulation is set. Safety has only been improved in other motor based sports due to new and improved safer structures and engineering, not in new rules.
>
> As for trying to set a hard floor for tasks, I agree with others who have commented here, what a ridiculous concept, put forth by those who have no concept of what it takes to fly ridges! As for low thermalling, whats low for a js1 is not low for a 1-26. What is low for a guy in a new-to-him ship is not low for a guy with 1,000 hours in a certain model. What is low for a guy right over a big landable field with little wind is not the same for a guy over trees in gusty wx. I absolutely can't stand when people attempt to mandate THEIR standards upon others, while missing the point that it is Decision making skills that create or obviate safety. You pick your standards and you live or die by them. I pick my standards and I live or die by them. We ALL live or die by the flight decisions we make irregardless of FAR's or contest rules.
>
> As for GP style racing having an abhorrent safety record or not, that doesn't matter. If you don't like that style of racing, don't participate. But since your not directly involved in that form of racing, don't try to mandate your opinion of what the rules should be on those that participate and enjoy that series. I myself will never have the oportunity to participate in one, but I sure enjoy the GP concept and admire the skills that Kawa and others demonstrate. As for the accident rate being a "black eye" on the public image of soaring, are you kidding? No one cares because no one even knows what we do! We are a miniscule minority within aviation, and not even on the radar! We still are thought to land out cause the "wind quit"!

There is a dichotomy here: lack of participation vs. personal responsibility for risk. Everyone is hand wringing about the nanny state and too many rules, and also the decline of participation: but the reason most often expressed for not wanting to race is "it's too risky". The fact is that racing rewards risk. Some of this is always going to be necessary. But flying low over unlandable terrain is not one of those. It does not measure skill, only luck. The hard deck I envision would not prevent flying next to or over ridges, this is still a judgement call. It would discourage you from getting very low in unlandable valleys. Those who say a hard deck won't work in the mountains haven't thought about it enough. Certainly where I fly, whole competitions can be flown within easy gliding range not just from a landing site, but from real airports. On decent days, the hard deck involved would not even come into play. On bad days it might, and one wonders if perhaps those days are unsafe days to hold competitions. I know a number of pilots who might enter such a competition, who will not otherwise.

Why not run the Olympics with no drug tests? After all, the damage done is simply a matter of personal risk tolerance? The reason is, any competition attempts to create a flat playing field, where the skill being measured makes the difference between winning and loosing. When personal risk tolerance is added as a major factor, we are not testing soaring skill anymore. You can still go out on a non contest day and get as low as you like wherever you like, if that's what turns your prop. In a soaring competition, it is soaring skill we are supposed to be measuring, not risk tolerance.

[Clay[_5_]]

I think the idea that contests reward risk taking is way overblown. Spend some time analyzing Sebastian Kawa's flight logs (ok, maybe not those in Chile), and I think you will see a pilot that minimizes risk to the maximum extent possible. I don't think we need to give budding competition pilots the idea that they will need to be taking risks to do well. I think the opposite is more likely true.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

> Place as many "disincentives" to unsafe flying as you like in the rules and
> guys will still be running into ridges, stall/spinning and acting crazy in
> a gaggle. Once again, it is personal decision making and personal limits
> that create safety. It is an INTERNAL issue (mindset), not an external
> (rules) one.
A big "Thank you!" to everyone participating in this sadly "necessary" thread
drift conversation. I hope none ever lose sight of why and the circumstances
under which it began. I'll add a couple more thoughts...

- Specific thanks to RO & UH for sharing their world-level-soaring-competition
experiences. I hadn't previously known of RO's while I'd only been able to
internally speculate upon UH's (got it essentially right!). Neither's
experiences and shared-to-date conclusions surprise me.

- Of the (sadly, WAY too many [double figures?]) soaring acquaintances I used
to know who've died while participating, so far, none have died in a
competition. I consider that an important statistic for anyone inclined to
personal insightfulness.

- While I expect someone to either infer or outright claim that the sentiment
expressed in the two excerpted sentences above is "direct support for aerial
anarchy," I don't take it that way at all. Rules (e.g. in the USA, FARs/CFRs),
training, and experience are fundamentally necessary - sort of in the "We hold
these truths to be self evident..." vein - but they're far from "the last
word" when it comes to exercising in-flight safety. Because it's important to
me and my (soaring) worldview, I've banged the safety drum a fair amount over
the years on RAS, and elsewhere, going so far as to accurately - as distinct
from rhetorically - claim I never do things containing the energy to kill or
inflict serious injury to my frail pink bod without spending mental time
beforehand refreshing those realities in my brain cells. So far I've not
injured myself while driving or soaring, and still retain all my fingers, toes
and eyeballs. Which is not to say I've never rushed, "done stupid things,"
gotten lucky, remembered "just in time," etc...

That said, I've also been (accused of? imputed to?) being some flavor of
"fearful, inhibited safety freak," which is laughably off-target. I simply
believe that ideas, and the actions they lead to, have very real consequences,
up to and including self-inflicted, accidental, death. I genuinely believe
that if more people piloted sailplanes with their own flavor of such thoughts
"actively in mind," we would be mourning fewer lost companions. Please note
I'm in no way meaning to imply anything at all about the circumstances of Mr.
Tomas Reich's life, thought processes and sad passing, all of which I'm 100%
ignorant. My judgments merely reflect my assessments of human nature in
general, my late friends in particular (whose deadly accidents range from
"pattern innocuous," to "he lost a 'showing off' risk" to ???), and
generalized speculation...all "merely" intended to help maximize the time
granted me to enjoy life's active gifts.

Rules and mindsets, mindsets and rules...which more impactfully "create
safety"...where "safety" is defined as the absence of accidents (fatal and
otherwise)? Does it really matter? Both have very real effects, even if we
can't really measure many of them. Paraphrasing the oft-pithy, former
two-time world soaring champion, George Moffat, just because we can't measure
something (see another competitor beating us) doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Having worked in the early 1990s for a company run by
criminally-expediency-driven management that managerially extended all the way
down to "we line grunts" (a few subsequently went to prison!), and that went
bankrupt during my time under their regime, during production/planning
meetings I'd claimed more than once that just because something can't be
directly assigned to numbers on the bottom line doesn't mean activities
associated with (bad) decisions and orders were not (adversely) affecting
those numbers.

Rules for soaring competitions aren't immune from similar effects. And as has
already been noted by others in this thread, failure to implement existing
rules has its own consequences. Rules and mindsets...it's something of a
Gordian Knot truly severable only by the sword of flight physics.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[[email protected]]

Thanks Bob, very nicely put, rules and mindset, there is the duality that I think has merit. I just see the trend always pushing the "rules" aspect while ignoring or assuming the unchangability of the mindset portion.

And no, your not a safety curmudgeon, your just an old guy like me who has flown alot, taking a handfull of questionable risks and are still here to tell the tale.
Dan

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 9:13:31 AM UTC-8, Clay wrote:
> I think the idea that contests reward risk taking is way overblown. Spend some time analyzing Sebastian Kawa's flight logs (ok, maybe not those in Chile), and I think you will see a pilot that minimizes risk to the maximum extent possible. I don't think we need to give budding competition pilots the idea that they will need to be taking risks to do well. I think the opposite is more likely true.

And where would one find the flight logs from this SGP race?

[krasw]

On Wednesday, 24 January 2018 19:13:31 UTC+2, Clay wrote:
> I think the idea that contests reward risk taking is way overblown. Spend some time analyzing Sebastian Kawa's flight logs (ok, maybe not those in Chile), and I think you will see a pilot that minimizes risk to the maximum extent possible. I don't think we need to give budding competition pilots the idea that they will need to be taking risks to do well. I think the opposite is more likely true.

Really good pilots, Kawas or others who end up winning days and whole competitions are not necessarily the risk takers. Taking risk means you have already made a mistake and try to win some seconds back. If you look at any day winners' flights, they are the ones who never get low or in bad situation, they have no reason to take risks.

[Paul Agnew]

SGP Race Coverage page: http://www.sgp.aero/finals2017/race-coverage/daily-race-coverage.aspx?contestID=28606

[Clay[_5_]]

And where would one find the flight logs from this SGP race?

I was talking about earlier World Championships, not the SGP.

Not sure if logs are still there:
https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/32nd-fai-world-gliding-championships-2012/results/15-meter
https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/32nd-fai-world-gliding-championships-2013/

[[email protected]]

Like 9B, I've known more people who have been killed in glider accidents than by any other cause: 14, of which 8 were at contests and another 4 who were active competition pilots arguably on training flights. Those numbers include my father and my best friend, so risks and safety are hardly academic concepts for me.

I've seen unsafe flying at regional and U.S. national contests. Often someone simply makes a mistake. Occasionally it's the result of consistent unsafe practices and I've expressed my concern to the pilot and/or the CD. I've seen an unsafe flying penalty assessed and at least one pilot ejected from a contest. I don't know how often the CD pulls someone aside for a private chat based on credible complaints but I know it's happened.

Since I began flying contests almost 50 years ago, I've heard it said that top pilots win in part because they take more risks. I'm sure that happens occasionally on specific days. But more commonly I truly believe they're just better pilots who can fly more aggressively without being unsafe. I agree with UH that many of us tend to fly more aggressively at contests but I don't think we often transgress into the danger zone. Typically I've had more concern about less qualified pilots overextending themselves trying to emulate the experts.

Safety is a big issue at contests. Most of us enjoy flying them in part because of the thrill it gives us. But no one wants to die doing it. These days, we don't really even want to land out and take a chance on damaging our expensive gliders, not to mention incur the inconvenience of a retrieve! Hahaha.

Pilots traveling to the U.S. to compete in our national contests have occasionally reported favorably on the safety briefing that is given each morning here by a different pilot. Some are better than others, of course. But I have learned a lot from these over the years.

I've also given a few, in some cases citing experiences that involved avoidable danger. GPS log files are a wonderful tool that allows us to analyze how a dangerous situation developed, in particular involving multiple aircraft getting too close to each other. I replayed one sequence on SeeYou for a pilots' meeting at a nationals (after anonymizing the gliders involved) and listened to the intake of breath as two blips merged on the screen (fortunately not in the air, but by less than one meter). And I've privately forwarded several similar analyses to pilots that have made me take evasive action.

The common thread, IMHO: most of us sit through these briefings very aware of the risks but saying: "it can't happen to me." Or "he/she made a really foolish mistake [which I would never make]."

To that point, one of the most effective safety briefings I've ever had the privilege to see was given by world-class Australian pilot Bruce Taylor at our Nephi nationals in 2016. Bruce got low over unlandable terrain on the first day in a borrowed glider and gave a talk the next morning about how he had gotten himself into a bad situation. It was sobering to hear a pilot of his stature and experience say he always thought he could fly his way out of any situation he got himself into...and then admit he had been wrong. Then he detailed the mistakes he made without self-deprecating jokes or attempting to mitigate the risks or rationalize his behavior. Not a soul in the room made a sound as he was speaking. As one of this country's all-time-best pilots observed afterward, it was a talk that might have been more appropriately targeted at the experienced pilots there than at the neophytes.

Would a "hard deck" prevent us from making certain mistakes? Possibly, although I personally think it's impractical without severely constraining the flying we do. As Bruce detailed (and 9B discussed), the mistakes he made started many miles earlier. By the time he was in trouble, he was just trying to stay airborne. Not long after he dug out, he put in and landed at an airport (before, two days later, winning the Open Class task in an 18M glider).

Most of us don't want to think we could make fundamental mistakes. We all think we fly within our capabilities. In fact, I think it's more common--and applauded--now than it was many years ago for pilots to say "I [turned back/landed/gave up] because I reached the end of my [comfort zone/competency/skill level]".

Yeah, sometimes we shake our heads in admiration when a top pilot pulls off an amazing feat that would have scared us to death. More often the discussion that ensues when someone takes a big risk and gets away with it is quite disparaging behind that pilot's back. I can think of one example where it wasn't so much a matter of "if" the risks would catch up with a highly successful pilot as "when" (and the answer turned out to be: not long).

Let's be honest. If soaring were a zero-risk activity, like video games, it wouldn't have the same appeal. That's the glaring dichotomy to me: how to manage the risks of gliding without legislating away every activity that involves the tiniest bit of danger.

I don't want rules that encourage risky behavior. I have no objection to rules that allow pilots with more skill than mine to fly closer to the edge. But I don't want "nanny state" rules that seek to preclude every single activity that involves risk or potential negative consequences. They eliminate some of the attraction of the sport: i.e., the ability to manage risks as I see fit.

Sometimes it's not so clear what constitutes an unsafe decision at the time.. There's the concept of good vs. bad decisions and good vs. bad outcomes. I've headed out on tasks that I was convinced were gross overcalls--certain that every one of the 60+ contestants would land out--and returned with nearly 100% completions. From the rules and task setter's perspective, was that a good decision/good outcome? Or bad decision/good outcome?

The reverse has been true, as some might view the day at Nephi that nearly caught Bruce: an ambitious task over dodgy terrain for which the forecasted weather didn't quite measure up: good decision/bad outcome? Or bad decision/bad outcome? Or, since the completion rate was fairly high and no one got hurt, bad decision/good outcome?

I have no idea if the task on the last day at the Chilean SGP was ill advised. Or if a new rule would have prevented that task without also eliminating other tasks on weak days that are safe, valid tests of piloting skill.

As with everything else in life, to some extent we must leave the final decision up to the judgment of both task setters and pilots while trying hard to make sure there is nothing in the rules that encourages unwise risk taking (it's possible that the placing-based SGP scoring system might fall into this category) OR discourages flying in demanding but safe conditions.

So, yes, the safety record at this SGP seems questionable. But let's be careful about saying "there ought to be a rule" without analyzing what might be wrong and what steps are needed to address that. The rules are complicated enough already just for task setting and scoring. There's no reason to believe it's any easier to legislate safety, at least without legislating away much of the appeal of soaring.

Just my [typically long-winded] opinion on a thorny subject. I'm glad to see it discussed and very interested in reading the many insightful postings.

Chip Bearden

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 5:59:41 AM UTC-8, Paul Agnew wrote:
> From Facebook:
>
> Sad news from the last race day;
> Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.

"Let's be honest. If soaring were a zero-risk activity, like video games, it wouldn't have the same appeal." I do not agree with that statement. In fact the risk in it is exactly what makes it unappealing to many pilots.

There are two kinds of terrain impact hazards. One is flying too close to a ridge and impacting it, where a safe glide away from it to an airport exists. That hazard is greatly mitigated by the skill of the pilot. The other is flying too low over unlandable terrain. That hazard is slightly mitigated by skill, and greatly mitigated by luck. The former is a necessary component of mountain flying, the latter is not.

The pilots who object to the risk of competition, cite two things: mid air collisions, and having to get too low over unlandable terrain. No one I know cites having to fly too close to a ridge as a risk they are unwilling to take - that is part of soaring.

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, 21 January 2018 08:59:41 UTC-5, Paul Agnew wrote:
> From Facebook:
>
> Sad news from the last race day;
> Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.


Great discussion.

For those interested in a little history, see the account of the 1956 World Championships in St. Yan. Soaring Sept/Oct 1956. Especially pp 6-7, which is the account of the 11 July task from St. Yan to St. Auban....

Plus ça change....

[Brett]

Like 9B, I've known more people who have been.. (SNIP
SNIP)...Just my [typically long-winded] opinion on a thorny subject. I'm glad to see it discussed and very interested in reading the many insightful postings.

Chip Bearden

A well written post Chip. You nailed it.

Brett Hunter

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

"Would a "hard deck" prevent us from making certain mistakes?"

No, and that's not the point. The hard deck removes the points incentive for making those mistakes. There is a big difference between a rule against doing something, a ban, an attempt to stop something, and removing a positive incentive to do something. Now, we have a positive incentive for very low-altitude saves. Removing that incentive will not "prevent" anyone from doing anything. But it will lower the temptation. There is a difference between a law against something and removing a government subsidy for it. (Economist talking)

We do this throughout soaring. We do not allow pilots to land two miles from the airport, race back, reassemble and fly again. When we did, there were some poorly assembled gliders. We ban gyros, not trusting pilot judgement. We put points penalties in place for flying in restricted airspace. We force pilots to carry parachutes, and insurance.

We do it throughout sports. The olympics tries to ban doping. Bicycle racing forces people to wear helmets. Hockey forces players to wear mouthguards. Interestingly in every case the competitors fought it tooth and nail, just as now. In each case, it is interesting that competitors didn't want to lose the advantage that taking risks gave them. But they ignored that a rule that applies to everybody applies to everybody.

All ye who proclaim that "I'm a sensible pilot, I would never do anything that dumb," should be clamoring for the hard deck to prevent those crazies from stealing a contest from you by thermaling low. They're out there, and they will.

The hard deck is good enough for navy top gun school. I guess they're not manly enough for you?

On mountain flying. A hard deck is easy to implement, I think we agree, at the flatland sites where we do 90% of contest flying. Just what logic says "it's hard to do for mountain flying so we shouldn't do it at all?"

John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

And plus ça change reminds us that another 50 years of repeating the same old homilies is likely to make no more difference to the accident rate or the consequent popularity of contest soaring than the last 50 years have done.

John Cochrane

[Tango Eight]

On Wednesday, January 24, 2018 at 8:25:48 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

> The pilots who object to the risk of competition, cite two things: mid air collisions, and having to get too low over unlandable terrain. No one I know cites having to fly too close to a ridge as a risk they are unwilling to take - that is part of soaring.

Neither midairs nor getting low over unlandable terrain are desirable for competition purposes, your friends are terribly misinformed.

Less tongue in cheek: The guys that go fast are doing so without taking any significant risk w.r.t. difficult outlandings. Risk is the temptress of the also ran. It should be resisted.

I speak as a pilot whom even my detractors would admit exhibits a larger than usual range of performance. When I'm "on", I have no need to take any risk to speak of. I simply fly my ass off, stay as high as I need to, it goes well. The difference between me and someone who is actually good at racing is consistency. The best guys are consistently "on".

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[krasw]

On Thursday, 25 January 2018 02:14:48 UTC+2, wrote:
>
> Let's be honest. If soaring were a zero-risk activity, like video games, it wouldn't have the same appeal.
> Chip Bearden

I cannot agree with this. I have skipped a lot of competitions because increased risk level, and making that risk smaller would increase appeal of these events greatly, at least for me. Competition flight is always a great adventure, feeling that this might not end well does nothing to me expect decision that I do not let this same situation to happen ever again.

[[email protected]]

> All ye who proclaim that "I'm a sensible pilot, I would never do anything that dumb," should be clamoring for the hard deck to prevent those crazies from stealing a contest from you by thermaling low. They're out there, and they will.
>
> The hard deck is good enough for navy top gun school. I guess they're not manly enough for you?
>

Readed my mind!


1 - Hard deck

On my first competitions we didn´t used yet minimum finish height here in Brazil, and I was feeling upset about the incentive to do stupid things on final glide... Regardles how fast I was on track there were allways the possibility of someone stealing your place only by irresponsible use of good luck.

Adding a hard deck on the whole contest area in my opinion would enhace security, it would force everyone to stop "pressing on" earlier in course (affecting decision making miles back the track), thus helping to avoid "no good landing options situations"

This deck heigh would depend on the terrain and weather we are flying in... it should not be too low in order to loose security sense, but not high enough in order to geopardyze the use of a otherwise "safely soarable day".

On F1 race, there are penalties for those who "put at least one wheel outside the track and get advantage with it". Our sport can adopt similar rules. As someone already said here, there are plenty of space between the racetrack and the guardrail/cushon/fence, why should we do not use the same "safety cushion"?

The hard deck may mean not landing out on track, some penalty points per occurence are enough incentive to avoid streching the risk.

I do not know about mountain flying, do not have experience on them.

2 - Flarm

Last pan american in 2017 in Argentina was an eye opening for me about the use of flarm (1st time using it). My past concern was that it would "beep" all the time without reason on a gaggle, but it did not happened... it only beeped when there was an actual incursion risk. In my humble opinion Flarm should be mandatory in all competitions, regardless of the number of gliders.

3 - Proximity penalty

But flarm alone is not the solution, a blue bird told me that IGC is already working on a score penalty proposal to discourage that fellow mate that "seems to be the owner" of the thermal. To me it would be a major improvement in safety.


Just my 3 cents.

Lautert - LA

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

>> Let's be honest. If soaring were a zero-risk activity, like video games,
>> it wouldn't have the same appeal.
>
> I cannot agree with this. I have skipped a lot of competitions because
> increased risk level, and making that risk smaller would increase appeal of
> these events greatly, at least for me. Competition flight is always a great
> adventure, feeling that this might not end well does nothing to me expect
> decision that I do not let this same situation to happen ever again.

Random post selection in action here - not intending to pick a bone with any
individual, but since the excerpted top post/point has been singled out by
several as a point of disagreement, here's a take from a slightly different
perspective.

I don't DISagree with the top post's assertion...which is far from saying that
I AGREE with an assertion that it's risk that attracted/attracts me to
soaring. However, few would argue that it's easier to summon forth personal
focus from inside a cockpit in the atmosphere than (say) from inside "the
average soaring simulator" (aka - w. wry humor - "video game proxy"). Point
being that - for me - there's no question that one of the (very, very, many)
personal satisfactions and enjoyments I derive from soaring is the
rarely-verbalized one of the *knowledge* that the activity requires unceasing
"acceptable mastery" of the risks involved in flight. That fact - while hardly
qualifying me as an adrenaline junkie - is personally undeniable, and in that
sense IS part of soaring's appeal for me. The activity unavoidably demands -
and provides positive feedback about - good judgment and one of its real-world
benefits. I find that appealing.

So while the risk didn't attract me, successfully managing it IS a continuing
attraction. Life...full of paradoxes...

Perhaps pedantically,
Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Steve Koerner]

Even over strictly flat flying areas, the hard deck idea has serious problems:

1. Someone here already pointed out that a pilot's motivation to not land out is partially about points, for sure, but also about the various practical hardships (plus embarrassment) that result from not making it home. The incremental difference in flying behavior would be small at best.

2. The fact that you have scored the poor SOB as landing out due to his "hard deck" altitude, does not place a safe landing beneath him. If the next turnpoint is straight ahead and the best farm field was back over there, one's problems and temptations are not magically resolved by a hard deck rule. The exercise of marginally bad judgement about where to turn back for a safe landing under hard deck rules has a very good chance of having a quite similar consequence as exercising marginally bad judgement under present rules and circumstances. To a significant degree, the problem is moved, but not eliminated.

3. There is no way for a pilot in his cockpit to know whether he has become subject to the rule or not. GPS makes only a crude estimation of altitude. Pressure based altitude works at the home airport where reference pressure is known indirectly by field elevation referencing before takeoff and after landing. The pilot is able to set his altimeter at the home airport. At a remote location late in the day, the pilot will not have a pressure reference available to him and consequently will not know his altitude accurately enough for the proposed purposes. His altimeters are not accurate and furthermore he has no ability to guess how well the scorer's interpolation of local pressure will play out over time and map position. The result will be, that for competitive reasons, he will need to assume that he is not landed out -- likely all the way until exactly the same height at which he would have otherwise committed to a landing. The idea doesn't work.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The idea does work. If you don't want it, that's another issue.

1. Someone here already pointed out that a pilot's motivation to not land out is partially about points, for sure, but also about the various practical hardships (plus embarrassment) that result from not making it home. The incremental difference in flying behavior would be small at best.

JC: We'll see about that. However, the point is not to stop, regulate or force pilots to do anything, to supplant pilot judgement, and so on. All we do is remove a temptation. If you choose to thermal below 500 feet, that's up to you, but you will not get any contest points for doing it. We eliminate those campfire stories about thermaling over a teacup and winning the day..

In practice, I notice most pilots on recreational cross countries are pretty good at giving up around 500 feet. The traces from contest crashes are full of much lower thermaling -- down to 150 feet in one case.

In any case, the point is not to force pilots to change behavior. The point is merely to stop rewarding such behavior with contest points. And, to remove the occasional very low save from the set of tricks that help you to do well at contests.


2. The fact that you have scored the poor SOB as landing out due to his "hard deck" altitude, does not place a safe landing beneath him. If the next turnpoint is straight ahead and the best farm field was back over there, one's problems and temptations are not magically resolved by a hard deck rule. The exercise of marginally bad judgement about where to turn back for a safe landing under hard deck rules has a very good chance of having a quite similar consequence as exercising marginally bad judgement under present rules and circumstances. To a significant degree, the problem is moved, but not eliminated.

JC: Again, again, again, the point is not to regulate pilot judgement. Yeah, dude, you have to look out the window and not count on rules to tell you what to do. All it does is to remove a temptation that when things have gone to pot and you're under 500 feet, make your best pilot decision and we won't tempt you with points.


3. There is no way for a pilot in his cockpit to know whether he has become subject to the rule or not. GPS makes only a crude estimation of altitude. Pressure based altitude works at the home airport where reference pressure is known indirectly by field elevation referencing before takeoff and after landing. The pilot is able to set his altimeter at the home airport. At a remote location late in the day, the pilot will not have a pressure reference available to him and consequently will not know his altitude accurately enough for the proposed purposes. His altimeters are not accurate and furthermore he has no ability to guess how well the scorer's interpolation of local pressure will play out over time and map position. The result will be, that for competitive reasons, he will need to assume that he is not landed out -- likely all the way until exactly the same height at which he would have otherwise committed to a landing. The idea doesn't work.

JC: Absolutely false. Gee, how do we handle the hard ceiling, and the start gate top? With an SUA file, pressure altitude, and a readout on your glide computer that tells you if you've busted the limit. Same here. The hard deck would be a set of stepping stone SUAs in 500 foot increments. You are over an SUA with, say 1000' MSL top. When the pressure altitude on your glide computer says 499, you're done. (US rules would likely put in a graduated penalty, but you get the idea)

Monitoring an altitude floor is no harder than monitoring an altitude top.

Again, let's get over "it can't work." It can, easily, especially at flatland sites. The real argument is "I wanna keep thermaling at 300 feet" and I don't mind if others beat me by doing so." That's one worth having.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

Lots of good comments on this thread. I'd like to address the concept of contest participation.

Folks have commented on here that many pilots are scared away from flying contests because of the risks involved. And many posts are concerned with trying to mitigate the risk factors as well as to dis incentivize risky behavior by applying penalties.

All well and good but there exists a large portion of flyers who enjoy xc but don't want to have a dang thing to do with contest flying directly because of all the rule bull**** and hasstle that exists nowadays. I am one, and I directly know of three other experienced contest flyers who still fly loads of xc and record chasing but have walked away from contest flying due to the restrictive and political nature of the sport as it exists today.

Keep pilling on more and more rules regulations requirments and mandatory equipment and watch the ranks of contest flyers shrink even more. I ditched my ventus years ago and bought a 1-26 to race with those guys. The competition is FIERCE, the rules are sensible, most everyone flies respectfully and circumspectly. The contest is a direct test of piloting skill not bank account. AND landing out is not a sign of failure nor do guys heap loads of derision on a landout guys head.

We have very very few incidents or accidents. We DO fly over rough terrain, we do take many chances ( necessary with 23/1 ld) but for the most part, the guys that are racing these ships know what the hell they are doing and they know every nuance of their ship. I can't say the same for many other classes who have become slavishly dependent upon l/d and electronics at the expense of good piloting judgement and skill.
Dan

[Steve Koerner]

John: I agree that it would be possible to set a numeric criteria and use your flight recorder like we do for other SUA numbers. I do need to state the issue in different terms...

The class A SUA is effectively set in terms of pressure measurement at nominal 17,500. It doesn't matter that one's flight recorder is reading wrong by +/- 500ft. For SUA, we simply all agree and understand that we are going by a known faulty pressure measurement. In fact, the expectation that it will read wrong by 500 ft at some probability is the reason that it's not an 18,000 ft contest criteria. When we are at the start cylinder, our altimeters have been recently referenced to field elevation; so in that case the measurement is fairly accurate. Not so out on course, 100 miles away late in the day. There will not be a suitable relationship between what is measured and where the ground actually is.

You would have to incorporate an expectable measuring uncertainty into your hard deck. The hard deck would have to be set to avoid the obvious problem that would be created by a false confidence scenario wherein the rules indicate that I'm not outside safety limits so I must be safe enough to keep circling.

You will end up with a hard deck number not very acceptable to very many people. Pilots will prefer to eyeball what is a safe circling height rather than have a faulty measurement dictate when it is not safe according to the rules. To state the problem differently: being scored as landing out due to an unreasonably high "hard deck" when you in fact, make it around without compromising your safety, will seem objectionable to most. I know it would be objectionable to me.

What's more, pilots will ultimately change their circling behavior only minisculely due to a hard deck land out rule -- they still need to get back to the airfield for plenty of good reasons.

[krasw]

On Thursday, 25 January 2018 23:11:13 UTC+2, Steve Koerner wrote:
> John: I agree that it would be possible to set a numeric criteria and use your flight recorder like we do for other SUA numbers. I do need to state the issue in different terms...
>
> The class A SUA is effectively set in terms of pressure measurement at nominal 17,500. It doesn't matter that one's flight recorder is reading wrong by +/- 500ft. For SUA, we simply all agree and understand that we are going by a known faulty pressure measurement. In fact, the expectation that it will read wrong by 500 ft at some probability is the reason that it's not an 18,000 ft contest criteria. When we are at the start cylinder, our altimeters have been recently referenced to field elevation; so in that case the measurement is fairly accurate. Not so out on course, 100 miles away late in the day. There will not be a suitable relationship between what is measured and where the ground actually is.
>
> You would have to incorporate an expectable measuring uncertainty into your hard deck. The hard deck would have to be set to avoid the obvious problem that would be created by a false confidence scenario wherein the rules indicate that I'm not outside safety limits so I must be safe enough to keep circling.
>
> You will end up with a hard deck number not very acceptable to very many people. Pilots will prefer to eyeball what is a safe circling height rather than have a faulty measurement dictate when it is not safe according to the rules. To state the problem differently: being scored as landing out due to an unreasonably high "hard deck" when you in fact, make it around without compromising your safety, will seem objectionable to most. I know it would be objectionable to me.
>
> What's more, pilots will ultimately change their circling behavior only minisculely due to a hard deck land out rule -- they still need to get back to the airfield for plenty of good reasons.

Hard deck is not "lowest safe altitude". It is altitude where scoring stops..

[[email protected]]

You want to "dis incentivize" risky behavior and minimize "risk" in a contest, here's your new rules:

-No saves below 1500 ft AGL hard deck, your scoring stops
-fly closer than 1000 fr to any mountain surface your scoring stops
-no more than 3 planes in a gaggle, you find your own or wait till someone departs
- all thermals must be flown using left turns no matter where on task cause some idiot might enter your thermal the other way
-no flying closer than 400 ft to nearest ship
- no peeing unless you have a cathiter cause thats a distraction
-fly slower than 3knots of your ships published stall speed and your scoring stops
-on a strong convection day (500fpm+) no flight speed greater than your ships max manuver speed.

Add these to all the existing rules, and there you have it, minimum risk max dis incentives.

IF some goof wants to enact all those rules at a contest, we will STILL be having this conversation a year from now when some goof has an accident and we all moan n groan wringing our hands about how risky contest flying has become and what NEW rules we can enplace to help keep someone alive. Now see who wants to come out and fly that contest.

[jfitch]

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 1:11:13 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> John: I agree that it would be possible to set a numeric criteria and use your flight recorder like we do for other SUA numbers. I do need to state the issue in different terms...
>
> The class A SUA is effectively set in terms of pressure measurement at nominal 17,500. It doesn't matter that one's flight recorder is reading wrong by +/- 500ft. For SUA, we simply all agree and understand that we are going by a known faulty pressure measurement. In fact, the expectation that it will read wrong by 500 ft at some probability is the reason that it's not an 18,000 ft contest criteria. When we are at the start cylinder, our altimeters have been recently referenced to field elevation; so in that case the measurement is fairly accurate. Not so out on course, 100 miles away late in the day. There will not be a suitable relationship between what is measured and where the ground actually is.
>
> You would have to incorporate an expectable measuring uncertainty into your hard deck. The hard deck would have to be set to avoid the obvious problem that would be created by a false confidence scenario wherein the rules indicate that I'm not outside safety limits so I must be safe enough to keep circling.
>
> You will end up with a hard deck number not very acceptable to very many people. Pilots will prefer to eyeball what is a safe circling height rather than have a faulty measurement dictate when it is not safe according to the rules. To state the problem differently: being scored as landing out due to an unreasonably high "hard deck" when you in fact, make it around without compromising your safety, will seem objectionable to most. I know it would be objectionable to me.
>
> What's more, pilots will ultimately change their circling behavior only minisculely due to a hard deck land out rule -- they still need to get back to the airfield for plenty of good reasons.

There are two reasons for the hard deck: one is to keep idiots from being idiots. But the more important one is to keep the sensible pilots from having to be idiots to compete. I guy who frequently circles very low might continue to do so with a hard deck rule. But the more sensible pilot who stays above the hard deck and goes slower as a result would not lose to the idiot.. This isn't really about protecting the idiot, it's about protecting the responsible pilot who must otherwise become an idiot, or lose.

Modern flight computers will easily be able to warn you when you are getting close to the deck, exactly as they do now for the ceiling.

John has it exactly right that the argument is really "I want to keep circling at 300 ft". All we are doing is creating a virtual ground slightly above the real ground to insure everyone's margin for error is equal, so their chances of winning on this basis are equal. It does not change the competition at all other than this.

It as amusing that the same arguments are used by some of the same individuals against motorgliders: that the motor allows continuing low over unlandable terrain and this is unfair. All you need in a non-motorized glider to do that is a high risk tolerance, this is equally unfair. The hard deck makes both of those arguments moot.

[[email protected]]

As always, John makes some excellent points. As occasionally happens, I don't necessarily agree with all of them. :)

Bob restated my thesis much more accurately and succinctly. It's not the risk, per se, that is appealing. It's mastering and managing the risk that keep me coming back every year.

Using the rules to reduce risk isn't new. We've been doing it as long as I've been flying, including: (skip to the bottom if you don't want a walk down soaring memory lane)

1. Eliminated the risks of high-speed retrieves from an early outlanding and hurried assembly before a quick relaunch.
2. Eliminated the risk of high-speed starts.
3. Reduced the collision risk of mass starts and eliminated the scoring risk that one or more pilots might be missed in the confusion.
4. Reduced the risk of heading out on course relatively low because of the old 1,000 m start gate altitude limit.
5. Eliminated the risk of low final glides, at least to the finish.
6. Eliminated the risk of low high-speed finishes.
7. Reduced the risks of catastrophic points penalties from relatively minor rules infractions with graduated penalties.
8. Eliminated the risk of being late in the launch queue and sitting on the ground while early launches start on course (relevant for old-style distance tasks and storm days).
9. Eliminated the risk of landing out simply because tasks were called under the philosophy that only half the field should finish.
10. Eliminated the risk of landouts on straight out and early area distance tasks.
11. Reduced the risk of flying with too little sleep from long flights and equally long retrieves occasioned by more aggressive tasking, including distance tasks.
12. Reduced the risk that one or a few pilots could gain a huge advantage through luck on an uncertain day (i.e., before devaluation became widespread).
13. Eliminated the risk of committing to a task set before the pilots' meeting that might be clearly inappropriate just a few hours later, which could result in mass landouts or a gross undercall.
14. Eliminated the risk that the manually operated start/finish gate might make an error, favoring or disadvantaging a pilot unfairly.
15. Eliminated risk that a pilot might attempt to achieve an advantage by [illegally] overloading his/her glider on a strong day.
16. Eliminated the risk that a pilot might illegally benefit and/or create a collision hazard and/or invite regulatory action from an airspace violation.
17. Reduced the risk of large numbers of gliders being forced to relight nearly simultaneously after being launched before soaring is possible.
18. Eliminated the risk of having to select a takeoff time in mid morning without knowing when the weather would become soarable.
19. Reduced collision risk by encouraging--and in some cases mandating--the use of FLARM technology.
20. Reduced the risk of being unable to locate a downed pilot by encouraging--and in some cases mandating--the use of ELTs.
21. Reduced the risk of landout damage by offering point-of-furthest-progress scoring and an airport bonus to incentivize pilots to land at airports.

I'm sure there are more. The point is that it's not out of line to consider another rules change to try to reduce the risk of pilots making mistakes when they are low. But is that what we want?

When I said that soaring without any risks wouldn't be as appealing, I wasn't referring to the above (mostly; I don't want to set off another debate about final glides and finish lines!).

Nor was I referring to the risk of, say, a midair collision, an uncertain event with disastrous consequences over which we have imperfect control.

But soaring isn't a video game (Condor excepted). We preemptively manage risk every time we turn our backs on the home airport and head out cross country, accepting the higher risk of damage from a possible land out. Mastering and managing that risk by flying well enough to return home while knowing how to pick a field and land in it safely if we can't is both exciting and satisfying, at least to me.

It's the same for flying a contest task on weak days when we otherwise wouldn't even bother to launch, much less attempt a cross-country flight, and for learning how to fly safely and competitively on ridges and in the mountains.

We all fly for different reasons. But for me, soaring would not have the same appeal if all we did was call short tasks on only the best days over landable flatlands. No one is suggesting that (yet). But the trend I see is towards a more regulated contest environment where we attempt to manage risks more through rules making (OK, scoring incentives), leaving less up to the pilot. That's not always a bad thing, just as free marketplaces need certain laws and regulations to prevent shortsighted and/or unethical players from profiting unfairly at the expense of others.

But we took navigation skills off the table years ago when we allow the use of GPS, making it easier for certain pilots (you know who you are!) to place well. We're already hearing that soaring is headed toward universal auxiliary power and the end of landouts, another skill from the old days.

For the sake of discussion, what hard deck would be proposed for flatland flying? Is the fact that some pilots could safely take it down to 500' while others would be at their limit at 1,000' mean we should set the deck at the higher level? Would removing the incentives for things that expert pilots can do safely but less qualified pilots cannot do reduce the reward for such excellence and result in compressing the skills--and points--of the pilots in a contest?

And could there be unintended consequences? I know my attention is more focused on my glide computer and altimeter when I am approaching the finish cylinder to make sure I don't bust the hard deck there...and that's when all I have to do is push over more or less to make the numbers come out. I watched several of the world's best pilots bust the hard deck at the finish at the Chile SGP in their eagerness to win the race. Was that a conscious decision knowing what the penalties were, or did they just take their eyes off the ball momentarily?

As I'm struggling to stay above the floor in a marginal thermal, do I want to have to watch the ####ing altitude readout closely not just to insure I'm hanging on but that I'm not sinking through the floor? If the thermal is choppy and I'm marginal, will I be tempted to pull back slightly to maintain my altitude, thereby eroding my safety margin? Will I be forced to ignore a hawk going up fast a half mile away knowing I'm likely to drop through the hard desk on the way there?

Will we be discouraged from flying over low hills and ridge lines seeking thermals when low because although they are far more likely sources, the hard deck makes them unusable?

And since we're trying to address human frailties here, what about the subtle message that it's safe to circle just above the hard deck? I don't know about the rest of you but my decisions to keep thermaling at 500' are very, very few and far between. I don't have a single criterion for that decision; it's contextual and depends on altitude, turbulence, wind, landing options, terrain, time of day, my physical and mental condition, my standing at the time and what kind of contest it is, etc. Some pilots may subconsciously be LESS likely to worry about the risks of low thermaling so long as they remain above the hard deck...because it's within the rules. The human mind behaves in odd ways.

I agree with John that technically a hard deck could be implemented, albeit imperfectly, in the flatlands. I just don't agree (at least now) that we should do it.

But it's a thoughtful discussion. We should probably retitle this and move it to another thread, however.

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

"Hard deck" rules would effectively eliminate participation anywhere but Kansas (which is actually FLATTER than a pancake. There are more surface anomalies on your average flapjack than the terrain on the Kansas prairie.) In mountainous or ridge terrain, you can go from 100 ft. AGL to 3,000 ft. AGL in less than a half-mile. Does your scoring program recognize these factors? How good is your 3D terrain map? Whose terrain map elevation data do you use? When was the data last updated? Are you using pressure altitude or GPS altitude to determine aircraft altitude? And since when is it considered "unsafe" to run a ridge within a few wingspans of the terrain, with plenty of vertical clearance just to your left (or right)? The proposal to "stop scoring" when you are within 1,000 ft. (vertically or horizontally) from the terrain is laughable. You cannot ridge soar unless you are "on the deck" and close in. It's kind of like when they asked bank robber Willie Sutton why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is." In the mountains or ridges, that's where the lift is.

You want no-risk competition? There is always Condor and the regularly scheduled internet contests. Somehow, I don't see it making the Olympics, but then again, neither will real life soaring.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Do I have to re-explain things in the same thread over and over? The hard deck does not use a terrain model. It is a set of SUA files, that specify MSL pressure altitude minimums, in stairstep fashion at 500 foot intervals. So in some places you're 1000' over the actual ground. Higher elevations over unladable terrain are a good idea. It is monitored exactly the same way we monitor 17500', start gate max, finish gate min, etc. Set altitude to field at takeoff, on your flight computer. When your flight computer pressure altitude says (say) 999' in a 1000' MSL pressure altitude, you're busted, just like 17501. In mountain sites, ridges stick out -- it's 500' over the valley floor. But duh, we'd try it in the flatlands first.

Sorry to be getting testy, but these points were made and answered about three times higher up in the thread. And we're not idiots, you know. If it were so obvious we might have figured that out on our own before going public..

John Cochrane

[Steve Koerner]

Chip has made very good points. Most compelling is the simple point that a hard deck is a distraction. It's a contest scoring related distraction at a point in time and space that none of us can afford one. I know how much focus is required when approaching the class A airspace boundary. When a possible off-field landing is imminent, I don't have spare bandwidth to deal with an artificially created problem and its set of nuances.

I also strongly agree with Chip's point that human nature will allow that circling to the bottom of what is permitted must be OK for me since it would be OK for others. That factor, combined with the problem of altitude measurement uncertainty forces the hard deck to a large number that simply will not be acceptable.

I generally favor rules to encourage safety. I have long favored changing to mandatory Flarm. I see the hard deck idea, unfortunately, as not workable.

[jfitch]

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:41:40 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Chip has made very good points. Most compelling is the simple point that a hard deck is a distraction. It's a contest scoring related distraction at a point in time and space that none of us can afford one. I know how much focus is required when approaching the class A airspace boundary. When a possible off-field landing is imminent, I don't have spare bandwidth to deal with an artificially created problem and its set of nuances.
>
> I also strongly agree with Chip's point that human nature will allow that circling to the bottom of what is permitted must be OK for me since it would be OK for others. That factor, combined with the problem of altitude measurement uncertainty forces the hard deck to a large number that simply will not be acceptable.
>
> I generally favor rules to encourage safety. I have long favored changing to mandatory Flarm. I see the hard deck idea, unfortunately, as not workable.

Why is the hard deck any different than the hard ground? Do you find the hard ground to be a distraction? You already successfully race over a hard deck - the ground. Why is this one any different?

In fact it is far less of a distraction, because violation of the rules results in a penalty, and violation of the ground results in death.

[[email protected]]

Lots of comparisons to F-1 with respect to hard decks. What we have yet to acknowledge is the cars are safer. The wide skirts on tracks don't prevent the cars from hitting walls. Watch Robert Kubitsa's crash in Montreal. The safety barriers were not in play he was injured pretty bad but he lived to drive again. We have made great improvements in sailplane performance but not crash surviveability. People still crash modern passenger cars and die but at a lower rate then trundling a vintage 50's cat into the same object as a modern entry level Toyota. Rules have made sailplane racing safer but people still die and are going to die as long as we fly. We cannot legislate common sense. Even with rules people still crash cars. A glider is dangerous as soon as it is pulled to the flight line just as a car is dangerous as soon as we start the engine. Cars are crashed with significantly more energy then gliders but the crashes are more survivable. Rather than worrying about new L/D, better self launch, electronic devices and rules, pilots should demand manufacturers figure out how to build ships to survive a crash with greater regularity.

[Steve Koerner]

Jon, That reasoning would work if the hard deck were somehow offered in lieu of the hard ground. Unfortunately we would have to deal with both at the same time. Would we not?


> Why is the hard deck any different than the hard ground? Do you find the hard ground to be a distraction? You already successfully race over a hard deck - the ground. Why is this one any different?
>
> In fact it is far less of a distraction, because violation of the rules results in a penalty, and violation of the ground results in death.

[Muttley]

Coming back to the Chilean Grand Prix
Extract of the Commentary at about 1h10m

"very low",

"I have never seen a Chilean glider in this area",

"this is usually an area were we do not fly",

"they are very very low",

"you see my face, I would not like",

"one of the situation people get into particularly on the last day where everybody just want to keep going and normaly, they would have stopped for a climb even if it is weak",

"this evening you will be hearing stories about "I have never been so low" ",

"they look like good fields, they are not",

"a lot of fields with vines here",

"Chilean pilots will tell you they are no outlanding fields in Chili",

"this turnpoint is very tricky because in a valley with no good climb",

"we have never been at that low altitude in this area",

Thank you to "Fleg" from the French www.volavoile.net Forum for this extract.

[Clay[_5_]]

I agree with Lautert's point above: knowing there's a hard deck will influence my flying miles before I reach it. Frankly I think it'd make me fly a little smarter, but who knows. Habitual offenders would be made obvious, perhaps leading to changes in behavior before it's too late

[MNLou]

For a flatland contest, I'd put the hard deck at 1000'. That separates the "damn I need to land immediately" distraction from the "damn, I just landed out automatically" distraction.

Once below 1000' agl, set up a landing and then work on the save.

That's more in line with the SSF recommendations than a 500' deck.

Lou

[[email protected]]

When I bought my last glider, the Discus was all the rage. I paid more to get the ASW 24 because of its crashworthy safety cockpit. I also ordered the canopy wire deflector bar and added a 6-point harness and ELT, among other things, to improve crash survivability. Gerhard Waibel received an OSTIV award for his design, which includes an impact-absorbing landing gear and which has been used in subsequent Schleicher gliders.

The ads seem to indicate that the other makers are paying more attention to safety now but I don't know how successfully, or how important that is to most pilots. I voted with my wallet.

Chip Bearden

[Mike C]

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:56:25 PM UTC-7, wrote:
> "Hard deck" rules would effectively eliminate participation anywhere but Kansas (which is actually FLATTER than a pancake. There are more surface anomalies on your average flapjack than the terrain on the Kansas prairie.) In mountainous or ridge terrain, you can go from 100 ft. AGL to 3,000 ft. AGL in less than a half-mile. Does your scoring program recognize these factors? How good is your 3D terrain map? Whose terrain map elevation data do you use? When was the data last updated? Are you using pressure altitude or GPS altitude to determine aircraft altitude? And since when is it considered "unsafe" to run a ridge within a few wingspans of the terrain, with plenty of vertical clearance just to your left (or right)? The proposal to "stop scoring" when you are within 1,000 ft. (vertically or horizontally) from the terrain is laughable. You cannot ridge soar unless you are "on the deck" and close in. It's kind of like when they asked bank robber Willie Sutton why he robbed banks. "Because that's where the money is." In the mountains or ridges, that's where the lift is.
>
> You want no-risk competition? There is always Condor and the regularly scheduled internet contests. Somehow, I don't see it making the Olympics, but then again, neither will real life soaring.

I believe the Air Force Cadets have a hard deck when they fly in contests. It is an altitude that, if they sink to or below while on course, they may not thermal and must land. Not sure how that really helps though if you are low over unlandable terrain.

Mike

[[email protected]]

I've got an idea. Lets mandate that all contest ships be motor equiped and fly the tasks running their engines. The pilots can all use earplugs so they dont hear the motor running and we can pretend we are "soaring". Guys would still put themselves into dangerous situations. So the ultimate solution seems to be, line up all the contestants on their computers and run a condor based contest. That will show us who the best are and wow no risk to manage other than maybe blowing a fuse.

Ridiculous ideas? For sure they are. But so is the continual dumbing down of the skill set necessary to xc soar. Cross country soaring is unforgiving of the idiotic and the inexperienced and the arrogant. It always has been, it always will be. All the rules in the world will not change that fact. Just like all the tea in china won't make a cup of coffee.

Heres an idea that would probably save more lives than any of the above mentioned rules. Before a guy can fly in a contest, he needs to actually demonstrate the ability to land his ship over a 60 ft obstacle With MINIMUM ENERGY stopping within 800ft of the obstacle. I can tell you the failure rate at that test would be high. But those that actually spent the money and time to nail that skill will keep themselves alive even if they have to put down in a vineyard or a sagebrush covered valley or even a rock pile. I have been part of retreaves for all of the above mentioned landings, ships were busted up, sure, but injuries were all minor. Mostly just bruised egos and pocketbooks. CONTROLLED flight into rough terrain IS survivable, not pretty but survivable. Ask me how I know. But it takes a mindset thats ready for it.

Should guys not put themselves in these type situations? You bet. But even the most conservative contest flier will tell you they have found themselves in a pickle at least once in their racing career which they extracated themselves from or survived vowing to never do that again. I know I have been there. Neither the lack or the presence of rules put them in that pickle, THEY PUT THEMSELVES in it! I put myself in it! The guy thats gonna kill himself racing, is gonna kill himself racing period due to his own mindset. All the rules out there just forstall the inevitable. We all know the guys out there who push beyond good reason. Put a rule in to prevent foolishness in one area and those same guys will push it in another area. It becomes a never ending cycle of reactionary thinking that never addresses the true problem and just curtails the liberties of others (sounds like the government lol). When all is said and done, the end outcome for the guy who doesn't appreciate the seriousness of his decisions or his lack of decisions is the same untill that guy changes internally.

[[email protected]]

Instead of trying to engineer human behavior with rules, just remind everybody the trophies are made of tin.

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Jon, That reasoning would work if the hard deck were somehow offered in lieu of the hard ground. Unfortunately we would have to deal with both at the same time. Would we not?
>
>
> > Why is the hard deck any different than the hard ground? Do you find the hard ground to be a distraction? You already successfully race over a hard deck - the ground. Why is this one any different?
> >
> > In fact it is far less of a distraction, because violation of the rules results in a penalty, and violation of the ground results in death.

Steve, the hard deck replaces the ground in your thinking as it is above the ground. Once violated, now you've ended your contest points accumulation and can fly however you like. If placed at a reasonable altitude (this would be site related) you needn't worry about the ground until then, other than the normal keeping track of potential landing sites given your energy as we all do all the time (or should). The whole intent of a hard deck is that if perfectly designed, as long as you are above it you have a safe glide to a safe landing area. It isn't a perfect world but that is the intent.

In Kansas with landable farm fields as far as you can see, the deck could be 700 ft AGL or whatever people are comfortable with. I quit thermalling well above that myself even in flatlands. In the Minden area and east, the hard deck in many places could be 5000 AGL or even higher as it is a 40 mile glide to the next safe landing area. As you know from flying there, any reasonable day you will be 7000 feet above that. And again, this has nothing to do with ridges and mountains, which will poke through the deck and you can dust the rocks if you choose.

I've seen a number of pilots well below what I consider my hard deck. I've seen pilots down in the Lake Tahoe basin hoping to ridge soar Daydreams to make it out. I've seem pilots down in the canyons south of Mammoth, rocks on every side and no way out. Often then get away. But some of them are dead or no longer own an unbroken glider. I do not want to compete against that behavior.

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 8:01:59 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> I've got an idea. Lets mandate that all contest ships be motor equiped and fly the tasks running their engines. The pilots can all use earplugs so they dont hear the motor running and we can pretend we are "soaring". Guys would still put themselves into dangerous situations. So the ultimate solution seems to be, line up all the contestants on their computers and run a condor based contest. That will show us who the best are and wow no risk to manage other than maybe blowing a fuse.
>
> Ridiculous ideas? For sure they are. But so is the continual dumbing down of the skill set necessary to xc soar. Cross country soaring is unforgiving of the idiotic and the inexperienced and the arrogant. It always has been, it always will be. All the rules in the world will not change that fact. Just like all the tea in china won't make a cup of coffee.
>
> Heres an idea that would probably save more lives than any of the above mentioned rules. Before a guy can fly in a contest, he needs to actually demonstrate the ability to land his ship over a 60 ft obstacle With MINIMUM ENERGY stopping within 800ft of the obstacle. I can tell you the failure rate at that test would be high. But those that actually spent the money and time to nail that skill will keep themselves alive even if they have to put down in a vineyard or a sagebrush covered valley or even a rock pile. I have been part of retreaves for all of the above mentioned landings, ships were busted up, sure, but injuries were all minor. Mostly just bruised egos and pocketbooks. CONTROLLED flight into rough terrain IS survivable, not pretty but survivable. Ask me how I know. But it takes a mindset thats ready for it.
>
> Should guys not put themselves in these type situations? You bet. But even the most conservative contest flier will tell you they have found themselves in a pickle at least once in their racing career which they extracated themselves from or survived vowing to never do that again. I know I have been there. Neither the lack or the presence of rules put them in that pickle, THEY PUT THEMSELVES in it! I put myself in it! The guy thats gonna kill himself racing, is gonna kill himself racing period due to his own mindset. All the rules out there just forstall the inevitable. We all know the guys out there who push beyond good reason. Put a rule in to prevent foolishness in one area and those same guys will push it in another area. It becomes a never ending cycle of reactionary thinking that never addresses the true problem and just curtails the liberties of others (sounds like the government lol). When all is said and done, the end outcome for the guy who doesn't appreciate the seriousness of his decisions or his lack of decisions is the same untill that guy changes internally.

Once again, the value I place in this idea is not that it will keep fools from being fools. Rather, it will save me from having to compete with fools. That is a big difference.

Once you have violated the hard deck you can be as foolish as you like, thermal right into the ground in an attempt to prevent a retrieve, I don't care. But you didn't win the contest by being foolish. We are not trying to legislate behavior with rules. We are trying to stop rewarding foolishness with a trophy, and punishing the wise by leaving them in the audience.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

One of the most interesting, thoughtful and thought-provoking threads in
recent RAS history, IMO. Too bad how it came to be, and genuinely saddening
some among us will have future occasions to revisit this particular thought arena.

Excerpted from up-thread...
> When all is said and done, the end outcome for the guy who doesn't
> appreciate the seriousness of his decisions or his lack of decisions is
> the same until that guy changes internally.

Some readers may take the above sentiment as merely another way of sanctioning
the, "Anything goes (woo hoo!)" worldview. I take it as "distilled human reality."

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[[email protected]]

If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.

As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.

Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.

Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.

[Dan Marotta]

Make radar altimeters mandatory in glider competition.Â* Of course, if
one is low and flies over a feed lot with a very large pile of bovine
excrement (looking for a fragrant thermal), he might break the hard
deck... ;-)

On 1/25/2018 11:59 AM, Steve Koerner wrote:
> Even over strictly flat flying areas, the hard deck idea has serious problems:
>
> 1. Someone here already pointed out that a pilot's motivation to not land out is partially about points, for sure, but also about the various practical hardships (plus embarrassment) that result from not making it home. The incremental difference in flying behavior would be small at best.
>
> 2. The fact that you have scored the poor SOB as landing out due to his "hard deck" altitude, does not place a safe landing beneath him. If the next turnpoint is straight ahead and the best farm field was back over there, one's problems and temptations are not magically resolved by a hard deck rule. The exercise of marginally bad judgement about where to turn back for a safe landing under hard deck rules has a very good chance of having a quite similar consequence as exercising marginally bad judgement under present rules and circumstances. To a significant degree, the problem is moved, but not eliminated.
>
> 3. There is no way for a pilot in his cockpit to know whether he has become subject to the rule or not. GPS makes only a crude estimation of altitude. Pressure based altitude works at the home airport where reference pressure is known indirectly by field elevation referencing before takeoff and after landing. The pilot is able to set his altimeter at the home airport. At a remote location late in the day, the pilot will not have a pressure reference available to him and consequently will not know his altitude accurately enough for the proposed purposes. His altimeters are not accurate and furthermore he has no ability to guess how well the scorer's interpolation of local pressure will play out over time and map position. The result will be, that for competitive reasons, he will need to assume that he is not landed out -- likely all the way until exactly the same height at which he would have otherwise committed to a landing. The idea doesn't work.

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

And hope the cows "break the wind"

[krasw]

I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Very interesting having a hard deck for a contest out of Truckee. What would the hard deck be on the Pine Nuts coming home?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.
>
> As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.
>
> Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.
>
> Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.

[[email protected]]

Well Krasw your free to enact any additional rules you want over there. We're independent revolutionary individualistic freedom loving self responsibility minded americans. Give it a go. If you make it work maybe we will adopt it over here.

[[email protected]]

Well Johnathan, thats the question isn't it. One guy posted on here that the hard deck would apply mostly to the average valley floors, and guys would be free to "scrap the rocks" as much as they want while crossing ridges or trying to soar the slopes. But as we know most guys kill themselves screwing up in the mtns, not over the valleys. Now we end up with another new rule that doesn't do much regarding true safety except for the guy who screws up thermalling low in a valley.

[[email protected]]

This thread has been more interesting in getting a feel for the general mindset of competitors than it has in actually solving any safety issues.

I think for me it is revealing three very distinct modalities of thought.:
1. The paradigm of more rules=more safety.
2. The paradigm of more rules=fairer competition, eliminating points for risk takers.
3. Some guys just accept competition as it is, want to prevent any further curtailments of someone trying to define a flying style,and accept the resulting consequences both in contest standing and in contest risk.

I don't think there will ever be a solution to satisfy all three mindsets.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

That reminder has been made pretty much at every contest since about 1950. Charlie Spratt was particularly effective. He asked who can remember who even won the contest two years ago. The effects of this policy on contest behavior is evident.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The minden valley is about 4700 and pretty benign, so I'd put the hard deck in that area at 5500' MSL. The point is to not give points for low altitude thermaling.

The hard deck is not intended to stop pilots from doing stupid things, nor is it intended to stop too close ridge soaring.

A more ambitious CD might put in a final turnpoint over the pine nuts with a minimum altitude, to ensure a safe lake Tahoe crossing. Final turnpoints with minimum altitudes are used in the SGP to ensure reasonable final glides, and the idea is more broadly applicable. But that's a separate idea. Let's keep it simple for now.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

John what reminder and what policy? I want to grasp what you are trying to convey. The reminder that trophies are tin?

[[email protected]]

I would add:

4. The paradigm of more rules=fewer opportunities for pilots with better skills to be rewarded for them.
5. Some pilots are [mostly] in agreement with the many rules changes that have reduced risk (I detailed 21 since I started flying contests in 1968) but they want to evaluate each new proposed change on a cost/benefit basis: the cost in terms of complications and restrictions on flying and perhaps even an impact on whether certain days are contest days vs. the potential benefit of fewer accidents.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:13:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> This thread has been more interesting in getting a feel for the general mindset of competitors than it has in actually solving any safety issues.
>
> I think for me it is revealing three very distinct modalities of thought..:
> 1. The paradigm of more rules=more safety.
> 2. The paradigm of more rules=fairer competition, eliminating points for risk takers.
> 3. Some guys just accept competition as it is, want to prevent any further curtailments of someone trying to define a flying style,and accept the resulting consequences both in contest standing and in contest risk.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

Just popping in to say, consalances and prayers to family and friends of the pilot.
Rules issues SHOULD be in another thread..........
Period.......

Frikkin autocorrect is a PITA......

[[email protected]]

Charlie this thread morphed after about the third post. May not be appropriate here, but it has really been a good thoughtfull conversation bringing up many valid points, although I don't think we have any real concrete solution to the overall problem.

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.
>
> As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.
>
> Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.
>
> Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.

'guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush' I'm one of those guys. In a $4000 1-26 with a 30 knot stall that's one thing. In a $200K 18 meter, it's entirely different. I'm familiar with the area, having flown there for nearly 30 years.

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 10:47:36 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Very interesting having a hard deck for a contest out of Truckee. What would the hard deck be on the Pine Nuts coming home?
>
> On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> > If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.
> >
> > As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.
> >
> > Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.
> >
> > Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.

The Pine Nuts would be sticking well through the hard deck. There are safe landing sites an easy glide on both sides. I don't want to have to compete with the guy circling at 400 ft at the south end of the Minden Valley though.

[[email protected]]

Why not try it before buying it by allowing CD's the option to set a hard deck. They are setting the task, so they know the type of flying people will need to do to complete the task.

A task can be challenging without being dangerous, but "it depends" is a constant in our sport - the CD (Task committee) is in the best position to make the determination of what the limits should be on any given day. They already set the Max height and Task type/distance/direction - give them one more tool to try.

I agree we all do not want to reward bad piloting and I agree with many other points in this thread - I am not so sure how most of it prevents a good pilot with local knowledge like Tomas for who this thread was started, from making a fatal mistake - but doing nothing gets us a known result.

WH

[[email protected]]

Then that will limit the type of flying you will be comfortable doing. If that limited perspective is adopted by the majority of 18m competition pilots, then the rules need to be adjusted to reflect that. Clearly thats whats happening and I would agree that's the type of racing they all chhose to do..

However that being said, then one need not be surprised when guys screw up and having no experience with low flying/pea patch landing/ground scraping end up hurting themselves.

I can tell you, when I lived in minden I flew the 1-26, the pilatus b4 and the ventus all with the same personal minimums, knowing however that the ventus gave me many more options distance wise, but all three could be put (and were) into tight landing places. Doing that with the ventus however took me about 30 pattern tows before I got a handle on getting her in slowely and in limited distance.
During 20 years of flying all three ships I made 23 outlanding that were not at established airstrips. Bent the pilatus one time hitting a lone unseen fence post.

As for the cost of damage, I'm assuming your ship is insured. You have to have it anyways so did I. It hurts just as much bending a 1-26 as it does a glass bird.

[[email protected]]

I don't mind flying with that 400ft thermalling guy, as long as I'm not down there with him lol. He's already lost the day.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

As "staff" on other forums, while I agree there is worthwhile conversation here, let's keep on topic, passing of a fellow pilot.....just saying.

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

"You can't fix stupid".
In any competition, someone will always bend/stretch the rules.
Terra firms tends to weed out some over time in flying. At the detriment of others......

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

The Minden valley is benign, but since my hypothetical contest was out of Truckee, and I am attempting to return late in day along pine nuts. Is the deck 14,000 at Bald Mtn if I attempt a final glide from there or 5500 if I go North by Air-Sailing?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> The minden valley is about 4700 and pretty benign, so I'd put the hard deck in that area at 5500' MSL. The point is to not give points for low altitude thermaling.
>

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
<< I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.>>

Actually, I've heard sound arguments on both sides of this debate, both sides. Makes me think you're being sarcastic. :)

I respect John's proposing a concept he believes will help save lives. I originally thought the hard deck was some number above the estimated terrain altitude similar to the Altitude AGL field on my TopHat flight computer (based on the terrain altitudes in the mapping database).

But I think John is proposing big blocks of airspace, SUA style, that establish a horizontal plane over some swath of terrain below which we could not fly without incurring a penalty. That plane might be as little as a few hundred feet or less above a local high point or as much as thousands of feet above low and/or unlandable spots.

Would these new SUAs be different for Standard/15M Class vs. 18 Meter vs. Open Class, since the ability to glide out to a safe landing varies?

One of the challenges (consulting-speak for "problems") I see is navigating over these planes. We wouldn't be able to see them. Perfectly adequate clearance over the terrain under a nice-looking cloud or fast-climbing gaggle might, in fact, be under the hard deck by the time I glide there. Yes, the same is true for actual terrain but at least I can eyeball that on the way and make adjustments (proceed at slower speed, climb in weak lift, turn back).

Under the current rules, the Rules Committee has judged--probably not without reason--that it's unwise to allow us to overfly restricted/controlled airspace because we might not be able to glide out beyond the outer border. So all of those areas extend from their floors up to infinity for scoring purposes; i.e., we can fly under but not over.

The reverse is true in this proposal. It's not only OK to fly over these new "restricted" areas (i.e., the airspace below the hard deck), it's mandatory. The challenges I've mentioned--e.g., how to deal with unexpected sink or assess whether you can clear the edge of the airspace many miles ahead--exist with the actual terrain but at least you can see it without looking inside the cockpit every few seconds to check.

As anyone knows who has ever tried to stay under the start cylinder ceiling or climb out the top or climbed up next to P-40 at the R4N contest (FYI: P-40 is the prohibited area over Camp David, which extends out within a very short distance of the last, sun-facing, into-wind slope to climb up on the way home late in the afternoon, and into which the wind tends to drift you unless you keep opening up your circle), this requires a fair amount of attention if the margin is close. I can also see some analogies with the safety finish, which seems to continue to confuse pilots though they seldom encounter it.

Chip Bearden

[[email protected]]

Chip I only wish that guy was speaking tongue in cheek, regarding no good reasoning against a hard deck, he was serious in his assertions.

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:17:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> << I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.>>
>
> Actually, I've heard sound arguments on both sides of this debate, both sides. Makes me think you're being sarcastic. :)
>
> I respect John's proposing a concept he believes will help save lives. I originally thought the hard deck was some number above the estimated terrain altitude similar to the Altitude AGL field on my TopHat flight computer (based on the terrain altitudes in the mapping database).
>
> But I think John is proposing big blocks of airspace, SUA style, that establish a horizontal plane over some swath of terrain below which we could not fly without incurring a penalty. That plane might be as little as a few hundred feet or less above a local high point or as much as thousands of feet above low and/or unlandable spots.
>
> Would these new SUAs be different for Standard/15M Class vs. 18 Meter vs. Open Class, since the ability to glide out to a safe landing varies?
>
> One of the challenges (consulting-speak for "problems") I see is navigating over these planes. We wouldn't be able to see them. Perfectly adequate clearance over the terrain under a nice-looking cloud or fast-climbing gaggle might, in fact, be under the hard deck by the time I glide there. Yes, the same is true for actual terrain but at least I can eyeball that on the way and make adjustments (proceed at slower speed, climb in weak lift, turn back).
>
> Under the current rules, the Rules Committee has judged--probably not without reason--that it's unwise to allow us to overfly restricted/controlled airspace because we might not be able to glide out beyond the outer border. So all of those areas extend from their floors up to infinity for scoring purposes; i.e., we can fly under but not over.
>
> The reverse is true in this proposal. It's not only OK to fly over these new "restricted" areas (i.e., the airspace below the hard deck), it's mandatory. The challenges I've mentioned--e.g., how to deal with unexpected sink or assess whether you can clear the edge of the airspace many miles ahead--exist with the actual terrain but at least you can see it without looking inside the cockpit every few seconds to check.
>
> As anyone knows who has ever tried to stay under the start cylinder ceiling or climb out the top or climbed up next to P-40 at the R4N contest (FYI: P-40 is the prohibited area over Camp David, which extends out within a very short distance of the last, sun-facing, into-wind slope to climb up on the way home late in the afternoon, and into which the wind tends to drift you unless you keep opening up your circle), this requires a fair amount of attention if the margin is close. I can also see some analogies with the safety finish, which seems to continue to confuse pilots though they seldom encounter it.
>
> Chip Bearden

SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd.. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> The Minden valley is benign, but since my hypothetical contest was out of Truckee, and I am attempting to return late in day along pine nuts. Is the deck 14,000 at Bald Mtn if I attempt a final glide from there or 5500 if I go North by Air-Sailing?
>
> On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > The minden valley is about 4700 and pretty benign, so I'd put the hard deck in that area at 5500' MSL. The point is to not give points for low altitude thermaling.
> >

Jonathan, the hard deck is not intended to get you home. It's intended to keep from having to compete with those who are willing to risk life and limb to win. The deck at Mt Baldy would be well below Mt. Baldy, as good airports (well, airports anyway) exist to the south, north, and east of the peak. It's probably the same 5500' MSL. A crash on Mt Baldy (and there have been) will be due to a stall spin, not running out of altitude to get to a landing.

A better question might be, what is the deck over Lake Tahoe? We have pilots that are willing to commit to the water, hoping that there will be sufficient ridge lift at Day Dreams to keep them from getting wet. Pilots have died trying this. We have had pilots place well at contests doing this. We have had well known foreign pilots landing on the golf course in Tahoe City and by some miracle missing everyone with no loss of life. A deck over the water that allows a return to South Shore or an exit through Spooner or Brockway passes prevents me from having to compete with those pilots. They're going to do it anyway on non-contest days, but I do not pay the price for their foolishness. There are posters here who will argue it is their right to get wet if they so choose. But that just hands the trophy to the greatest fool that survived his foolishness.

[[email protected]]

"Jonathan, the hard deck is not intended to get you home. It's intended to keep from having to compete with those who are willing to risk life and limb to win."

I surely don't understand this aversion toward competition. It appears you want to pick and choose who you race against. In this new scheme of things, you would have to eliminate moffat, striedeck, and Scott, all of which I have observed making very low saves, very questionable final glides, and making charges into very formidable terrain.

Under your ideology we would have to consider all of them uninformed inexperienced idiots when flying in their prime.

If the adage holds that the foolish only win occasionally and it is consistency that really counts, why not let things remain as they are, the cream will float to the top, you choose when to take chances and not and you keep yourself alive. Let the foolish be foolish. If you fly consistently then your accomplishments will become obvious without clogging up the competition with yet another set of complicated rules forcing guys to stare at their computers to be sure not to break a hard deck instead of looking out at the wx and the ground for a thermal or a safe place to land.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:45:29 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:41:40 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Chip has made very good points. Most compelling is the simple point that a hard deck is a distraction. It's a contest scoring related distraction at a point in time and space that none of us can afford one. I know how much focus is required when approaching the class A airspace boundary. When a possible off-field landing is imminent, I don't have spare bandwidth to deal with an artificially created problem and its set of nuances.
> >
> > I also strongly agree with Chip's point that human nature will allow that circling to the bottom of what is permitted must be OK for me since it would be OK for others. That factor, combined with the problem of altitude measurement uncertainty forces the hard deck to a large number that simply will not be acceptable.
> >
> > I generally favor rules to encourage safety. I have long favored changing to mandatory Flarm. I see the hard deck idea, unfortunately, as not workable.
>
> Why is the hard deck any different than the hard ground? Do you find the hard ground to be a distraction? You already successfully race over a hard deck - the ground. Why is this one any different?
>
> In fact it is far less of a distraction, because violation of the rules results in a penalty, and violation of the ground results in death.

Because ground you can see and imaginary deck you can't so you have to keep looking at your instruments.

[[email protected]]

<< SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.>>

This GPS stuff is a fad. I still use a map and compass. :)

I do have a handful of electronic gadgets. And I even know how to switch them on most of the time. And we have high unlandable plateaus back east. And I've flown a Nationals out of Minden and turned at Truckee and Air Sailing, among other sites.

You've missed a big point: namely, what will my arrival height be vis-a-vis the hard deck? Say the hard deck is at 6,000 MSL. The valley is roughly 5000' MSL, more or less. I'm in the middle of the SUA so I don't care how far away the edge is. I spot a field fire (you have those out west too, at least at Uvalde) about 3-4 miles away. I'm at, say, 6,800' MSL, 800' above the hard deck and about 1,800' above the valley floor. But my glide computer is not much help because unless I can point to a specific spot on the screen and do a GoTo or otherwise see for sure that the fire lies within the amoeba (which, of course, I've reconfigured to account not just for peaks and ridges but also for SUA floors, or maybe it's two amoebas, one for reachable landing spots and another one for reachable hard deck range), I don't know whether I'll bust the hard deck getting to the fire.

It's landable here so in a contest (or even a practice flight if I don't have another thermal), I'll go for the fire, estimating I'll still be 1,000' AGL or so when I get there. But its location is uncertain and, therefore, so is my arrival altitude, especially given a jolt of sink just before I hit 10 kts up in the smoke.

Idle thought: maybe we should allow adjusting the hard deck for total energy, so if you dive down below it but can still pull up over it, you're not penalized. Just a thought!

It's the same glide calculation I have to make now based on the terrain. But I can SEE about what my projected clearance is likely to be and shave it down or augment it based on what's available nearby in which to land. Yes, it takes some experience to do so. Yes, some less experienced pilots will play it conservatively and not run for the fire. That's fine; they're safe. Others will plunge ahead without thinking and might have to land. It sounds harsh but the sensible pilots shouldn't be penalized by preventing them from exercising their experience and being rewarded for it because a few pilots don't exercise care. It's the other side of the coin of "don't penalize me because someone else stupidly flies over Lake Tahoe relying on ridge lift".

It's easier the thermal is marked by a gaggle and some gliders have FLARM because now they're depicted on my map display and I can project (with an extra step for the devices I use) what my arrival height should be.

Back East, there will a movement to convince the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to equip soaring birds with tiny FLARM devices so we can see them on our computer screens and judge whether those low altitude bird saves will incur a penalty. :)

I think the idea of a hard deck has merit. I'm worried that all of us, including me, are tossing it around without thinking through the real-world problems of implementation. I'm in the technology business. It's very seldom the technology that fails in a project; it's almost always the implementation thereof.

That's why this discussion is valuable. And that's why I think dismissing anyone who offers reasonably informed comments in good faith fashion is a mistake.

BTW, I assume your ability to overfly the Reno Class C (ceiling 8400 MSL per the latest SUA files) without a catastrophic penalty is permitted by a special waiver. SSA Rules for sanctioned contests explicitly prohibit overflying such "closed" airspace, even when transponder equipped.

Chip Bearden

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Yea, go for it and then race with yourself!

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:54:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Well Johnathan, thats the question isn't it. One guy posted on here that the hard deck would apply mostly to the average valley floors, and guys would be free to "scrap the rocks" as much as they want while crossing ridges or trying to soar the slopes. But as we know most guys kill themselves screwing up in the mtns, not over the valleys. Now we end up with another new rule that doesn't do much regarding true safety except for the guy who screws up thermalling low in a valley.

Yep, tt will start innocent just in a flatland then it will be implemented in the mountains then it will be raised again and again like with the finish height was, until we all thermal every 5 miles.

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:13:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> This thread has been more interesting in getting a feel for the general mindset of competitors than it has in actually solving any safety issues.
>
> I think for me it is revealing three very distinct modalities of thought.:
> 1. The paradigm of more rules=more safety.
> 2. The paradigm of more rules=fairer competition, eliminating points for risk takers.
> 3. Some guys just accept competition as it is, want to prevent any further curtailments of someone trying to define a flying style,and accept the resulting consequences both in contest standing and in contest risk.
>
> I don't think there will ever be a solution to satisfy all three mindsets.

Yes, and let's not forget to ban trans fats from contest dinners. They can really kill us. Oh, and let's not forget about the real killer, salt.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 7:34:51 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:13:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> > This thread has been more interesting in getting a feel for the general mindset of competitors than it has in actually solving any safety issues.
> >
> > I think for me it is revealing three very distinct modalities of thought.:
> > 1. The paradigm of more rules=more safety.
> > 2. The paradigm of more rules=fairer competition, eliminating points for risk takers.
> > 3. Some guys just accept competition as it is, want to prevent any further curtailments of someone trying to define a flying style,and accept the resulting consequences both in contest standing and in contest risk.
> >
> > I don't think there will ever be a solution to satisfy all three mindsets.
>
> Yes, and let's not forget to ban trans fats from contest dinners. They can really kill us. Oh, and let's not forget about the real killer, salt.

Or crossing the street against the "don't walk" sign going to the pilot's meeting.
UH

[[email protected]]

That's alright, next they will require us to file flight plans :)

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 4:03:27 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> << SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.>>
>
> This GPS stuff is a fad. I still use a map and compass. :)
>
> I do have a handful of electronic gadgets. And I even know how to switch them on most of the time. And we have high unlandable plateaus back east. And I've flown a Nationals out of Minden and turned at Truckee and Air Sailing, among other sites.
>
> You've missed a big point: namely, what will my arrival height be vis-a-vis the hard deck? Say the hard deck is at 6,000 MSL. The valley is roughly 5000' MSL, more or less. I'm in the middle of the SUA so I don't care how far away the edge is. I spot a field fire (you have those out west too, at least at Uvalde) about 3-4 miles away. I'm at, say, 6,800' MSL, 800' above the hard deck and about 1,800' above the valley floor. But my glide computer is not much help because unless I can point to a specific spot on the screen and do a GoTo or otherwise see for sure that the fire lies within the amoeba (which, of course, I've reconfigured to account not just for peaks and ridges but also for SUA floors, or maybe it's two amoebas, one for reachable landing spots and another one for reachable hard deck range), I don't know whether I'll bust the hard deck getting to the fire.
>
> It's landable here so in a contest (or even a practice flight if I don't have another thermal), I'll go for the fire, estimating I'll still be 1,000' AGL or so when I get there. But its location is uncertain and, therefore, so is my arrival altitude, especially given a jolt of sink just before I hit 10 kts up in the smoke.
>
> Idle thought: maybe we should allow adjusting the hard deck for total energy, so if you dive down below it but can still pull up over it, you're not penalized. Just a thought!
>
> It's the same glide calculation I have to make now based on the terrain. But I can SEE about what my projected clearance is likely to be and shave it down or augment it based on what's available nearby in which to land. Yes, it takes some experience to do so. Yes, some less experienced pilots will play it conservatively and not run for the fire. That's fine; they're safe.. Others will plunge ahead without thinking and might have to land. It sounds harsh but the sensible pilots shouldn't be penalized by preventing them from exercising their experience and being rewarded for it because a few pilots don't exercise care. It's the other side of the coin of "don't penalize me because someone else stupidly flies over Lake Tahoe relying on ridge lift".
>
> It's easier the thermal is marked by a gaggle and some gliders have FLARM because now they're depicted on my map display and I can project (with an extra step for the devices I use) what my arrival height should be.
>
> Back East, there will a movement to convince the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to equip soaring birds with tiny FLARM devices so we can see them on our computer screens and judge whether those low altitude bird saves will incur a penalty. :)
>
> I think the idea of a hard deck has merit. I'm worried that all of us, including me, are tossing it around without thinking through the real-world problems of implementation. I'm in the technology business. It's very seldom the technology that fails in a project; it's almost always the implementation thereof.
>
> That's why this discussion is valuable. And that's why I think dismissing anyone who offers reasonably informed comments in good faith fashion is a mistake.
>
> BTW, I assume your ability to overfly the Reno Class C (ceiling 8400 MSL per the latest SUA files) without a catastrophic penalty is permitted by a special waiver. SSA Rules for sanctioned contests explicitly prohibit overflying such "closed" airspace, even when transponder equipped.
>
> Chip Bearden

The Reno Class C is a waiver, and has been that way for a long time - maybe a couple of decades? No one has thought it a problem. You don't cross it unless you are high enough, if low you do so at the peril of DSQ. (The limit in races is actually 10,000 ft, so well above the true legal limit). With the computer I use, I would not have a problem determining my glide over the SUA to where ever I am going. It is clearly shown on the flight profile. In fact most of the time the hard deck is well below the working band and is a non-issue.

[CindyB[_2_]]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 12:49:47 PM UTC-8, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> "You can't fix stupid".
> In any competition, someone will always bend/stretch the rules.
> Terra firms tends to weed out some over time in flying. At the detriment of others......

Condolences over the loss of Tomas.
It hurts us all, when any one pilot is lost to us. For any reason.

Secondly, +1 to this Charlie's observation.

I 'only' CM'ed about 18 Regionals in Region 12. Then took a little hiatus.
Then showed up to help be a towpilot (and crew) at the Tonopah Nationals. I also have seen the morph of rules, change of societal views from suck-it-up-buttercup to more nanny-state mentality. As a long-term CFI, I have seen the change from long-term involvement in soaring and progression through badges and skills, to the "what can I buy for $40k and go out with the guys?" Or, more blatantly, what can I buy to be at the top of the scoresheet. (My answer was - buy 40 years of experience or put 2500 hours in your logbook and make 7000 landings.)

Truly.... it takes a CD/CM event management with a set of huevos to 'level the field' somewhat. Over the years, I did several things that were not in the 'rules' and never had an issue with it. And later, I had a pilot make a request, and based on my Tonopah participation, agreed and put it into rules. 9.14. if you care to look it up.

A pilot landed out one day. Late, late retrieve. Morning rigging, missed the briefing, nasty heat day. Pilot launched and fell out. Crew struggles, we relaunch and he falls out again. He's entitled to another tow. I look him over,
he's irate, flushed, profane to his crew. I tell him he will go sit in the A.C. for 15 minutes. We will handle his glider. If he wants another tow at that time, he will get it - but he can't start his clock till he sits in the A.C. The cool off was worth it. He decided he was so far behind the day, he took the day off. Lived another ten years. Jack Lambie thanked me the week later.

A pilot mailed me his entry deposit (back when that was done). I called him and asked how much he had been flying at his home field that season (our event was in late August). He said he would come fly the practice weekend, but he hadn't been flying that summer yet. I said, sorry - I am mailing your check back to you. Didn't get a protest from him.

Had a contest pilot who leased his tug to me. Rules had morphed to a minimum finish height. We allowed high-speed low finishes out over the brush, away from buildings, and only if they had enough to climb and make normal closed traffic. Pilot had enough point-lead to win the contest with only a completion on the last day. In the AM he asked what the penalty would be for a low finish. 25 points. At ~5 pm, in the busy-ness of scoring, retrieve desk, paying tug pilots, etc. The CD storms in to ask if I knew what just happened at the gate. No? Another pilot stormed in, slapped down his recorder for download and asked if I knew what the so-and-so had done? No? The -25 point low finish had occurred - over the gate post & CD, over the parking ramp, over gliders pushing clear, over motorhomes -- and made most people run or fall to get lower from fear of being struck. The result in instant conference of CD and CM was - zero points for the day - unsportsmanlike and unsafe conduct. It was deliberate and considered - from the moment of penalty inquiry in the morning. The result was - NOT winning the event. OF drove out in a huff, but didn't protest the cape of 'pariah' slung onto him.

Later - Tonopah. I arrive about 2 pm Monday practice, mid-launch due to another towplane being disabled. I dump all my considerable freight, unfurl my rope on board and tow with the rest of the tug fleet. That evening, I get my 'briefing', which includes a short list of four contest numbers. If you pull in, in front of those - keep a sharp lookout! Why? They don't tow very well . . . and might do unconventional things. WTF???? If they're that bad, why aren't they sent home?
We don't have a rule that allows us to send them home.
And, we'd like to have their entrant money.
They won't win but they like to be at contests.
WTH???? So you would put ME at risk to launch them?
I was not pleased, nor impressed.

Following that contest, a Reg 12 pilot asked me how he could get an 'unsafe pilot' eliminated as an entrant. He wasn't going to fly contests anymore, if there wasn't a rule change or if this guy was there as an entrant. Hearing the exchange, looking at flight traces, knowing what I knew from being there, I took my request to the Contest Rules Committee. Bless their little hearts, they listened.
Paragraph 9.14 in National and Regional Rules now. So, if a CD or a CM has an issue with accepting any entrant, there is a channel for refusal. Not trivial, and hopefully above the level of any personal vendettas.

Do I think we can legislate 'good sense'? No.
Do I think it is valuable to openly discuss how to impact pilot choices during racing? Yes. Do I think it is right to consider how technology might interact with rules to reward more prudent choices? Yes. Do I think that gadgets can distract from rather than support situational awareness? Yes, many times.

But, the sport and racing will evolve.
Not always in the ways that I would wish. Navigation by pilotage is mostly a vanishing skill. Being "Reetered". Needing electronic tools to help calc on course what needs to happen to maximize your score, rather than flying an assigned task. The loss of the camaraderie of crew for everyone. Losses to me.

But, I am encouraged at the level of participation on this thread, and disappointed in only a few of the postings.
Know yourselves to be vulnerable humans.
Remember that glider racing will only earn you perhaps a moment's accolade. Violating your own margins ... can have lasting bad repercussions.

Fondly,
Cindy B

[[email protected]]

Cindy thank you so much for that post. I think its a wonderfull historical study of real life incidents and applications of rules or no rules or common sense decision making from the CM side of life. The perfect post to probably respectfully shut down this thread and start a new one regarding contest rules modification or join in on the hard deck thread.

I want to thank all of the participants on this thread, ones I agree with and also those that have very different viewpoints. It is good to chew over these issues with civility even on matters as emotionally charges as these topics. That is not always found on r.a.s. It goes to show the intellectual maturity of those posting to this particular thread.

No matter which general perspective you take on this topic: the need for more rules, or the needed change in pilot mindset superseding rules, the very fact that this issue of safety is on the minds of the participating posters means they probably are not going to be the subject of this dicussion in the near future God and common sense willing. You all are thinking safety, thinking consequences, and thinking personal boundaries. That, in my opinion, is where true safety needs to begin.
Dan

[krasw]

Interesting interview of Kawa about safety in Vitacura. It is sad to read that pilots were expecting something bad to happen during competition and still nothing could be done.

http://www.opensoaring.com/sebastian-kawa-about-finale-sgp-2018-in-vitacura/

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 10:59:41 AM UTC-3, Paul Agnew wrote:
> From Facebook:
>
> Sad news from the last race day;
> Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.

Hi to all,
I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who sadly died on last day of competition.

On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring back home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The new and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it possible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high mountain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the origins of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and filter pilot´s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task, no weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the accident...however it happened. Why?.

On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under analysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and "terrible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An 800 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival. Why it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably will never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.

We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the risk: rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots head, who finally manages all the factors.

On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot because minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC created a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new buffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why pushing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want more. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the pilots.

On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2 imposed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider maneuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the wing loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying competition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not 52.. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.

We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences, specially taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal accident happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will always be part of.

One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa´s flights but those in Chile. It is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with thousands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He flies in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the GP. None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how to fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better mentally and that is why he won.
Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but few days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we had together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.

Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the officials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.

Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.

Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes, glaciers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.

[[email protected]]

W dniu środa, 31 stycznia 2018 04:15:58 UTC+1 użytkownik napisał:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 10:59:41 AM UTC-3, Paul Agnew wrote:
> > From Facebook:
> >
> > Sad news from the last race day;
> > Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.
>
> Hi to all,
> I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who sadly died on last day of competition.
>
> On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring back home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The new and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it possible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high mountain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the origins of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and filter pilot´s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task, no weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the accident...however it happened. Why?.
>
> On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under analysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and "terrible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An 800 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival. Why it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably will never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.
>
> We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the risk: rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots head, who finally manages all the factors.
>
> On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot because minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC created a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new buffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why pushing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want more. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the pilots.
>
> On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2 imposed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider maneuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the wing loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying competition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not 52. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.
>
> We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences, specially taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal accident happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will always be part of.
>
> One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa´s flights but those in Chile. It is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with thousands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He flies in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the GP. None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how to fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better mentally and that is why he won.
> Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but few days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we had together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.
>
> Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the officials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.
>
> Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.
>
> Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes, glaciers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.

Base line at race 5 - std hight:
1. before start 2. rolling 20 km/h 3. landing 2-1 3-1 3-2
AR 680 681 681 1 1 0
EJ 684 686 683 2 -1 -3
QX 701 702 696 1 -5 -6
ZZ 686 685 681 -1 -5 -4
WG 673 675 676 2 3 1
Y 687 686 681 -1 -6 -5
YO 685 684 683 -1 -2 -1
AT 686 685 679 -1 -7 -6
I 685 685 683 0 -2 -2
GT 676 679 678 3 2 -1
P 689 691 685 2 -4 -6 in fact base line is 2m lower than WM but rules…
WM 686 687 683 1 -3 -4

So physically SK was higher than WM ...

Are there any examples confirming that a large wing loading causes more accidents? Is this just a theory?

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

Thank you,

So sorry for your loss.


At 03:15 31 January 2018, wrote:
>On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 10:59:41 AM UTC-3, Paul Agnew wrote:
>> From Facebook:
>>=20
>> Sad news from the last race day;
>> Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of
>Sant=
>iago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the
>hospi=
>tal in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the
>injur=
>ies he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for
his
>=
>family and friends during this tragic time.
>
>Hi to all,
>I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who
>s=
>adly died on last day of competition.=20
>
>On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring
>b=
>ack home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The
>n=
>ew and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it
>p=
>ossible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high
>moun=
>tain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the
>origi=
>ns of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and
>filte=
>r pilot=C2=B4s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task,
>no=
> weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the
>accident...howeve=
>r it happened. Why?.
>
>On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under
>ana=
>lysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and
>"ter=
>rible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An
>8=
>00 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival.
>W=
>hy it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably
>will=
> never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.
>
>We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the
risk:
>=
>rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots
>head=
>, who finally manages all the factors.
>
>On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot
>b=
>ecause minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC
>c=
>reated a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new
>bu=
>ffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why
>pu=
>shing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want
>mo=
>re. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the
>p=
>ilots.
>=20
>On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2
>im=
>posed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider
>ma=
>neuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the
>wi=
>ng loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying
>com=
>petition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not
>52=
>.. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.
>
>We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences,
>speci=
>ally taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal
accident
>=
>happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will
>alway=
>s be part of.
>
>One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa=C2=B4s flights but those in Chile.
>I=
>t is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with
>thous=
>ands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He
flies
>=
>in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the
>GP.=
> None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how
to
>=
>fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better
>menta=
>lly and that is why he won.
>Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but
>f=
>ew days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we
>ha=
>d together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.
>
>Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the
>off=
>icials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.
>
>Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.
>
>Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes,
>glaci=
>ers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.
>
>

[Muttley]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 3:15:58 AM UTC, wrote:
> On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 10:59:41 AM UTC-3, Paul Agnew wrote:
> > From Facebook:
> >
> > Sad news from the last race day;
> > Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.
>
> Hi to all,
> I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who sadly died on last day of competition.
>
> On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring back home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The new and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it possible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high mountain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the origins of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and filter pilot´s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task, no weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the accident...however it happened. Why?.
>
> On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under analysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and "terrible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An 800 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival. Why it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably will never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.
>
> We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the risk: rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots head, who finally manages all the factors.
>
> On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot because minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC created a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new buffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why pushing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want more. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the pilots.
>
> On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2 imposed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider maneuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the wing loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying competition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not 52. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.
>
> We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences, specially taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal accident happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will always be part of.
>
> One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa´s flights but those in Chile. It is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with thousands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He flies in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the GP. None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how to fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better mentally and that is why he won.
> Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but few days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we had together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.
>
> Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the officials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.
>
> Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.
>
> Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes, glaciers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.

If it is any consolation to you, this is not the first time this Pilot has accused Competition Organisers and Competition Directors of trying to kill Glider Pilots during a Competition.

[[email protected]]

Cindy,

Well said. Thank you for that sobering outlook on contest safety and human frailty. My favorite was 15min of A/C. Personally, I don't like feeling rushed. Dehydration and exhaustion can impare someone just as much as drugs or alchohol; at a minimum it clouds our decision making. Also "safety first" is easier said than done. CD and CM have to walk the walk. Thanks for the post.

- Chris Schrader

[Jon Gatfield]

I too was a competitor at this event and have avoided this debate despite
wanting to react to some insensitive postings with phrases such as "you
can't fix stupid". I thought this kind of language inappropriate for Tomas
and his family: Tomas was not a "stupid" pilot.

I want to support Rene's comments below. I thought the venue was very good
for an SGP. The effort the Vitacura club and SGP management put into the
event was to be applauded. The tracking system, task setting, ground
operations and soaring conditions were all to my mind very good, and of
course the time difference worked well for the European audience. Yes there
were times when I had "interesting" moments but they were all my
responsibility, and I can equally think of several moments when I chose not
to take or to abandon climbs as I did not like the picture. Were this
incidents of mine the fault of rules or organisers? No, they were a
reflection of the risks I personally chose, or chose not, to take.

I do not agree with the online criticism of Brian and the SGP organisation.
The SGP team were all volunteers and no pilot was forced to fly: all this
was done for fun in an amateur sport that is voluntary and carries no big
prizes. It's worth remembering that. Rene and Carlos had a phrase I
particularly liked: they flew to make new friends, not to win tin trophies.


I want to fly in Chile again. The soaring conditions are very good indeed,
the scenery is jaw dropping, Chile is a wonderful country and I made many
new friends at the Vitacura club. Does any of the above demean the loss of
a fellow soaring pilot? Absolutely not.

Jon



>Hi to all,
>I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who
>s=
>adly died on last day of competition.=20
>
>On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring
>b=
>ack home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The
>n=
>ew and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it
>p=
>ossible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high
>moun=
>tain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the
>origi=
>ns of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and
>filte=
>r pilot=C2=B4s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task,
>no=
> weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the
>accident...howeve=
>r it happened. Why?.
>
>On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under
>ana=
>lysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and
>"ter=
>rible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An
>8=
>00 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival.
>W=
>hy it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably
>will=
> never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.
>
>We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the
risk:
>=
>rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots
>head=
>, who finally manages all the factors.
>
>On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot
>b=
>ecause minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC
>c=
>reated a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new
>bu=
>ffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why
>pu=
>shing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want
>mo=
>re. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the
>p=
>ilots.
>=20
>On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2
>im=
>posed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider
>ma=
>neuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the
>wi=
>ng loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying
>com=
>petition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not
>52=
>.. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.
>
>We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences,
>speci=
>ally taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal
accident
>=
>happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will
>alway=
>s be part of.
>
>One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa=C2=B4s flights but those in Chile.
>I=
>t is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with
>thous=
>ands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He
flies
>=
>in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the
>GP.=
> None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how
to
>=
>fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better
>menta=
>lly and that is why he won.
>Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but
>f=
>ew days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we
>ha=
>d together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.
>
>Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the
>off=
>icials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.
>
>Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.
>
>Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes,
>glaci=
>ers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.
>
>

[Jon Gatfield]

I too was a competitor at this event and have avoided this debate despite
wanting to react to some insensitive postings with phrases such as "you
can't fix stupid". I thought this kind of language inappropriate for Tomas
and his family: Tomas was not a "stupid" pilot.

I want to support Rene's comments below. I thought the venue was very good
for an SGP. The effort the Vitacura club and SGP management put into the
event was to be applauded. The tracking system, task setting, ground
operations and soaring conditions were all to my mind very good, and of
course the time difference worked well for the European audience. Yes there
were times when I had "interesting" moments but they were all my
responsibility, and I can equally think of several moments when I chose not
to take or to abandon climbs as I did not like the picture. Were this
incidents of mine the fault of rules or organisers? No, they were a
reflection of the risks I personally chose, or chose not, to take.

I do not agree with the online criticism of Brian and the SGP organisation.
The SGP team were all volunteers and no pilot was forced to fly: all this
was done for fun in an amateur sport that is voluntary and carries no big
prizes. It's worth remembering that. Rene and Carlos had a phrase I
particularly liked: they flew to make new friends, not to win tin trophies.


I want to fly in Chile again. The soaring conditions are very good indeed,
the scenery is jaw dropping, Chile is a wonderful country and I made many
new friends at the Vitacura club. Does any of the above demean the loss of
a fellow soaring pilot? Absolutely not.

Jon



>Hi to all,
>I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who
>s=
>adly died on last day of competition.=20
>
>On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring
>b=
>ack home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The
>n=
>ew and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it
>p=
>ossible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high
>moun=
>tain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the
>origi=
>ns of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and
>filte=
>r pilot=C2=B4s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task,
>no=
> weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the
>accident...howeve=
>r it happened. Why?.
>
>On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under
>ana=
>lysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and
>"ter=
>rible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An
>8=
>00 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival.
>W=
>hy it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably
>will=
> never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.
>
>We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the
risk:
>=
>rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots
>head=
>, who finally manages all the factors.
>
>On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot
>b=
>ecause minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC
>c=
>reated a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new
>bu=
>ffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why
>pu=
>shing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want
>mo=
>re. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the
>p=
>ilots.
>=20
>On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2
>im=
>posed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider
>ma=
>neuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the
>wi=
>ng loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying
>com=
>petition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not
>52=
>.. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.
>
>We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences,
>speci=
>ally taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal
accident
>=
>happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will
>alway=
>s be part of.
>
>One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa=C2=B4s flights but those in Chile.
>I=
>t is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with
>thous=
>ands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He
flies
>=
>in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the
>GP.=
> None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how
to
>=
>fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better
>menta=
>lly and that is why he won.
>Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but
>f=
>ew days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we
>ha=
>d together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.
>
>Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the
>off=
>icials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.
>
>Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.
>
>Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes,
>glaci=
>ers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.
>
>

[Jon Gatfield]

I too was a competitor at this event and have avoided this debate despite
wanting to react to some insensitive postings with phrases such as "you
can't fix stupid". I thought this kind of language inappropriate for Tomas
and his family: Tomas was not a "stupid" pilot.

I want to support Rene's comments below. I thought the venue was very good
for an SGP. The effort the Vitacura club and SGP management put into the
event was to be applauded. The tracking system, task setting, ground
operations and soaring conditions were all to my mind very good, and of
course the time difference worked well for the European audience. Yes there
were times when I had "interesting" moments but they were all my
responsibility, and I can equally think of several moments when I chose not
to take or to abandon climbs as I did not like the picture. Were this
incidents of mine the fault of rules or organisers? No, they were a
reflection of the risks I personally chose, or chose not, to take.

I do not agree with the online criticism of Brian and the SGP organisation.
The SGP team were all volunteers and no pilot was forced to fly: all this
was done for fun in an amateur sport that is voluntary and carries no big
prizes. It's worth remembering that. Rene and Carlos had a phrase I
particularly liked: they flew to make new friends, not to win tin trophies.


I want to fly in Chile again. The soaring conditions are very good indeed,
the scenery is jaw dropping, Chile is a wonderful country and I made many
new friends at the Vitacura club. Does any of the above demean the loss of
a fellow soaring pilot? Absolutely not.

Jon



>Hi to all,
>I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who
>s=
>adly died on last day of competition.=20
>
>On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring
>b=
>ack home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The
>n=
>ew and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it
>p=
>ossible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high
>moun=
>tain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the
>origi=
>ns of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and
>filte=
>r pilot=C2=B4s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task,
>no=
> weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the
>accident...howeve=
>r it happened. Why?.
>
>On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under
>ana=
>lysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and
>"ter=
>rible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An
>8=
>00 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival.
>W=
>hy it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably
>will=
> never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.
>
>We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the
risk:
>=
>rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots
>head=
>, who finally manages all the factors.
>
>On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot
>b=
>ecause minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC
>c=
>reated a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new
>bu=
>ffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why
>pu=
>shing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want
>mo=
>re. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the
>p=
>ilots.
>=20
>On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2
>im=
>posed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider
>ma=
>neuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the
>wi=
>ng loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying
>com=
>petition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not
>52=
>.. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.
>
>We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences,
>speci=
>ally taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal
accident
>=
>happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will
>alway=
>s be part of.
>
>One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa=C2=B4s flights but those in Chile.
>I=
>t is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with
>thous=
>ands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He
flies
>=
>in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the
>GP.=
> None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how
to
>=
>fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better
>menta=
>lly and that is why he won.
>Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but
>f=
>ew days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we
>ha=
>d together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.
>
>Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the
>off=
>icials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.
>
>Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.
>
>Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes,
>glaci=
>ers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.
>
>

[Jon Gatfield]

I too was a competitor at this event and have avoided this debate despite
wanting to react to some insensitive postings with phrases such as "you
can't fix stupid". I thought this kind of language inappropriate for Tomas
and his family: Tomas was not a "stupid" pilot.

I want to support Rene's comments below. I thought the venue was very good
for an SGP. The effort the Vitacura club and SGP management put into the
event was to be applauded. The tracking system, task setting, ground
operations and soaring conditions were all to my mind very good, and of
course the time difference worked well for the European audience. Yes there
were times when I had "interesting" moments but they were all my
responsibility, and I can equally think of several moments when I chose not
to take or to abandon climbs as I did not like the picture. Were this
incidents of mine the fault of rules or organisers? No, they were a
reflection of the risks I personally chose, or chose not, to take.

I do not agree with the online criticism of Brian and the SGP organisation.
The SGP team were all volunteers and no pilot was forced to fly: all this
was done for fun in an amateur sport that is voluntary and carries no big
prizes. It's worth remembering that. Rene and Carlos had a phrase I
particularly liked: they flew to make new friends, not to win tin trophies.


I want to fly in Chile again. The soaring conditions are very good indeed,
the scenery is jaw dropping, Chile is a wonderful country and I made many
new friends at the Vitacura club. Does any of the above demean the loss of
a fellow soaring pilot? Absolutely not.

Jon



>Hi to all,
>I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who
>s=
>adly died on last day of competition.=20
>
>On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring
>b=
>ack home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The
>n=
>ew and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it
>p=
>ossible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high
>moun=
>tain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the
>origi=
>ns of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and
>filte=
>r pilot=C2=B4s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task,
>no=
> weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the
>accident...howeve=
>r it happened. Why?.
>
>On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under
>ana=
>lysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and
>"ter=
>rible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An
>8=
>00 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival.
>W=
>hy it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably
>will=
> never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.
>
>We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the
risk:
>=
>rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots
>head=
>, who finally manages all the factors.
>
>On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot
>b=
>ecause minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC
>c=
>reated a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new
>bu=
>ffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why
>pu=
>shing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want
>mo=
>re. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the
>p=
>ilots.
>=20
>On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2
>im=
>posed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider
>ma=
>neuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the
>wi=
>ng loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying
>com=
>petition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not
>52=
>.. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.
>
>We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences,
>speci=
>ally taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal
accident
>=
>happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will
>alway=
>s be part of.
>
>One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa=C2=B4s flights but those in Chile.
>I=
>t is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with
>thous=
>ands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He
flies
>=
>in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the
>GP.=
> None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how
to
>=
>fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better
>menta=
>lly and that is why he won.
>Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but
>f=
>ew days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we
>ha=
>d together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.
>
>Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the
>off=
>icials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.
>
>Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.
>
>Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes,
>glaci=
>ers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.
>
>

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

I will take the heat on this because I believe you are using my phrase.

Trust me, I am NOT saying Tomas was stupid, nor am I saying he did something stupid, currently, we don't know.

My general comment was, rules don't make people stop doing things that may be considered stupid after the fact. Easy to second guess, you are not the PIC.
Many things can allow a very good and conscientious pilot to do something that does not work out ONCE. In flying, the margin from "hero" to "injured/dead" is a very fine line. Getting away with it at times does not mean it will always happen.

Gravity and hard ground make a very hard teacher, "you can't but experience but you sure do pay for it". Not my quote, but it's been around for a long time.

I still feel for family and friends of Tomas, I am not saying he did anything wrong or he was stupid in decisions. Nor do I feel rules will prevent some "obviously wrong actions" on the part of some pilots whether it was a one time thing or habitual.

Again, apologies to anyone if they felt I was degrading Tomas or his decisions.

[Jon Gatfield]

Thanks Charlie - your reply is much appreciated.
Jon



At 16:52 01 February 2018, Charlie M. UH & 002 owner/pilot wrote:
>I will take the heat on this because I believe you are using my phrase.
>
>Trust me, I am NOT saying Tomas was stupid, nor am I saying he did
>something stupid, currently, we don't know.
>
>My general comment was, rules don't make people stop doing things that
may
>be considered stupid after the fact. Easy to second guess, you are not
the
>PIC.
>Many things can allow a very good and conscientious pilot to do something
>that does not work out ONCE. In flying, the margin from "hero" to
>"injured/dead" is a very fine line. Getting away with it at times does
not
>mean it will always happen.
>
>Gravity and hard ground make a very hard teacher, "you can't but
experience
>but you sure do pay for it". Not my quote, but it's been around for a
long
>time.
>
>I still feel for family and friends of Tomas, I am not saying he did
>anything wrong or he was stupid in decisions. Nor do I feel rules will
>prevent some "obviously wrong actions" on the part of some pilots whether
>it was a one time thing or habitual.
>
>Again, apologies to anyone if they felt I was degrading Tomas or his
>decisions.
>

[Jon Gatfield]

Thanks Charlie - your reply is much appreciated.
Jon



At 16:52 01 February 2018, Charlie M. UH & 002 owner/pilot wrote:
>I will take the heat on this because I believe you are using my phrase.
>
>Trust me, I am NOT saying Tomas was stupid, nor am I saying he did
>something stupid, currently, we don't know.
>
>My general comment was, rules don't make people stop doing things that
may
>be considered stupid after the fact. Easy to second guess, you are not
the
>PIC.
>Many things can allow a very good and conscientious pilot to do something
>that does not work out ONCE. In flying, the margin from "hero" to
>"injured/dead" is a very fine line. Getting away with it at times does
not
>mean it will always happen.
>
>Gravity and hard ground make a very hard teacher, "you can't but
experience
>but you sure do pay for it". Not my quote, but it's been around for a
long
>time.
>
>I still feel for family and friends of Tomas, I am not saying he did
>anything wrong or he was stupid in decisions. Nor do I feel rules will
>prevent some "obviously wrong actions" on the part of some pilots whether
>it was a one time thing or habitual.
>
>Again, apologies to anyone if they felt I was degrading Tomas or his
>decisions.
>

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

NP.......(Internet shorthand for, "No Problem").

[Felipe Brito Pearson]

Just to stay clear, mainly because of disinformation, the glider GN, was taken out of the competition as there was a handling issue. The glider was being tail tow to runway 25 by a car, when the hook got disconnected from the car. As you can imagine a glider with water has a lot of inertial energy, so it started running against the car, as the glider did a turn, one of the wings hit the car, damaging severely one of it flaps. The pilot understood there was no way to fly a glider under that condition, so he pull out of the competition.

A few things that need to be considered for the near future. I have been working from the initial stages, in the OGN project in Chile, from installing them in hills you could ever think that someone could climb (or land on a helicopter) to calibrating and helping to develop the software.

In both cases, Klaus and Tomas, reaction was within the “gold minutes� for a pilot’s survival stage, location was precise and rescue procedures where in the correct lane in both cases. Technology has been upgrading at an amazing speed, flight replay can be done with an extreme precision nowadays that you are able to detect almost every dangerous situation that happens, but it’s a past tense.

The problem is that this is not a proactive solution, as it has to be analyzed later, and “later� could lead to a fatality, in which case it only allows you to find reasons but not to bring your pilot safety back home.
One of the improvements we talked around the club, is regarding SPOT. A device that could be programmed (hardware and software) with a few variables that would help to automatically notify a crash. We think it is not a hard step for SPOT, to include an accelerometer within the device, that constantly compares deceleration (in vertical and horizontal axis) together with ground speed. Under certain precise conditions within this two variables, a crash can be detected immediately, therefor launching the alarm without the need for the pilot to press a button in case of loss of consciousness, where obviously the pilot is in no condition to launch the alarm.

In conclusion, technology has lead us to great improvements around the OGN Project, but we are in the certain need to forward this “past� information, to the “future�, in order to detect when a certain behavior is noticed on a pilot. Accidents are the product of a sum of bad decisions, and the only way to avoid an incident is to break the chain of errors...

FBP

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:06:33 AM UTC-8, Felipe Brito Pearson wrote:
.....
> In conclusion, technology has lead us to great improvements around the OGN Project, but we are in the certain need to forward this “past� information, to the “future�, in order to detect when a certain behavior is noticed on a pilot. Accidents are the product of a sum of bad decisions, and the only way to avoid an incident is to break the chain of errors...
>
> FBP

Other than in helicopters, aircraft accidents are a sum of bad decisions. What is even more difficult for the glider pilot, is that the bad decision that started this chain might have been made 20 or more minutes before. Not so sure hard decks helps break a decision chain, when each pilot should already have their own personal hard deck in mind.