Hard Deck

[Karl Striedieck[_2_]]

For this hard deck scheme to work (land off airport if below a certain agl altitude) a major penalty would need to be imposed for not doing so. Simply "landing" the pilot at the low spot would give the same score as climbing away and returning to the evening meal at the airport. Who's going to pass up a climb out marked by a bird, vario or whatever thus avoiding all the dangers of an outlanding when there is no advantage to doing so?

KS

[Steve Koerner]

> Steve: Off field landings are all well and good, but there is simply nowhere to land on the north side of the Lake Tahoe basin. Zero, zilch, nada. One landing has been made on the golf course, but it looks mighty chancy to say nothing of the golfers.
>
> Both: The general idea of a last turnpoint with minimum altitude, as practiced in the SGP, has a lot of merit, when there are no good fields close to the airport for blown final glides. It would also allow finish lines such as we had at Uvalde without some of the amazingly close calls we also had at Uvalde.
>
> John cochrane

Yes, John I know that. I wasn't responding to Jon's post about crossing the lake (We were typing at the same time I guess). Landing out surely always requires a place that's suitable.

Jumping to the problem of what to do about Truckee... How about simply using a 30 mi finish cylinder. That would allow us to have a full day racing task there. If you can't get home due to west wind washout, you just land Minden or Carson without any disrupting effect on the scoresheet and without any daredevil temptations. The tugs at Minden would be set on ready alert for late hour missions or next morning missions if you bring your toothbrush. Or, for the crewed amongst us, crews might even be pre-dispatched to Minden. Just a thought.

[Stu]

OK, this thread has been well beat to death by several thoughtful writers. It is time to hear from the other pilots that fly contests.
I have been flying contests since 1987. Only fly one regional contest per year and have done fairly well in the rankings. I would estimate that I get low (under 1,200 ft.) maybe once every other contest. Don’t think I have ever had a save under 500 ft., but am comfortable climbing out from 600 ft. (given very good landing options). I would agree with those that state there is no advantage to getting low and having a save – it usually costs significant extra time to climb out because the low saves are not normally the best thermals. I would say that I have won several contests because I was able to climb out from low saves (in fairly strong thermals).

I do believe that I would fly slightly more conservative if there were a Hard Deck, however, I think there would be situations where I may still get low. Once low, then the Hard Deck would not change my thermaling at or below the Hard Deck. If I broke the hard deck I would still thermal at a level that I would be comfortable. How low I would thermal would depend on the landing options but the Hard Deck would in no way affect my decision.
So in a nut shell, I do not support a Hard Deck. Let’s hear form other pilots that regularly fly contests.

Stu Larimore
2Z

[Branko Stojkovic]

I agree with Stu.

Branko Stojkovic
XYU

[Dennis Vreeken]

Agree with Stu . Well said

[[email protected]]

In any competitive sport the rules structure selects for participants with specific skill sets. Soaring is no different. Paragraph 1.1 in the SSA rules for national soaring competitions, states that the purpose of the competition is to select a national champion, rank the contestants and select a team for international competition.
Times have changed and perhaps we should revise the mission statement to include a focus on safety measures and compassionate tasking to enabling everyone to compete and have fun But as it stands, it is abundantly logical to adopt the FAI international rules for our national soaring competitions.. I know everyone is sick of SF’s relentless promoting of this concept but he is right.
Hard decks, short tasks, big circles and safety finishes are great for most of the pilots, crews, and organizers but are unlikely to produce a world champion anytime soon.
OLC camps, safaris and regional competitions are excellent places to tinker with the rules and are where most pilots (myself included) should be flying anyway.

Dale Bush

[[email protected]]

As a competition pilot and director, I totally agree. Best intentions, many times have unintended consequences.

In Italy many years ago a high-finish was assigned in a flatland competition area. A few pilots did ballistic pull-ups on the line, while looking only at their altimeter. One of them had a half-turn spin on the line as a consequence.
As a Director, I only assign high-finishes when two local conditions are present:
- a smallish airport, not allowing mass finishes;
- terrain elevation, surrounding the airport, may involve very low flying over significantly populated areas.

I guess more rules needs much more briefing information, anticipation of problems, education, practice.

The hard-deck may be bringing this kind of unsafe behavior at the deck altitude. Yes, pilots will try anything to avoid crossing the deck.


thanks for the very interesting discussion to everyone!

Aldo Cernezzi
www.voloavela.it



> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5,

> John,

> like it or not/agree or not,

> i also see pilots cirlcing at 550 feet, pulling and milking like hell,
> maneuvering aggressively, close to stall trying to stop themselves from
> getting DQ'd by nicking,or sliding down into the hard-deck, further provoking
> an impending stall close to terrain. i know, it sounds absurd, but people
> will do it, flat land or not.


> it's those unintended consequences... i think the hard deck creates some
> problems, and solves none.

> ND

[ND]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 9:39:29 PM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> For this hard deck scheme to work (land off airport if below a certain agl altitude) a major penalty would need to be imposed for not doing so. Simply "landing" the pilot at the low spot would give the same score as climbing away and returning to the evening meal at the airport. Who's going to pass up a climb out marked by a bird, vario or whatever thus avoiding all the dangers of an outlanding when there is no advantage to doing so?
>
> KS

my point exactly Karl! :) the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs.

[[email protected]]

If the idea is to discourage low saves because of the potential for stall/spin at a low altitude and not wanting to encourage risk for points. Fine we are trying to save lives. After the scored landout the pilot figures to dig out and fly home. While trying the glider augurs in, ship destroyed and pilot dead. How is this different than taking the same risk for points is on the contest and if after the scored landout the pilot decides to take the same risk to get home but this is okay because they died trying to avoid inconvenience and not gather a few points. The death is not on the contest but the PIC's poor decision? Taking risks is always relative and even with data the number of deaths from botching a low save are so few compared to other aspects of the flight (starts and finishes) trying to regulate for such low probability is a waste of effort.

It seems like the pilots were injured screwing up the landings. If we want safer contests we should stop debating rules to stop minuscule aspects of the sport and put real effort into teaching pilots how to safely land the glider in unfamiliar territory.

Too often pilots land at home and roll up to the trailer for convenience. Maybe landing in such a way to simulate an off field landing and suffer the inconvenience of having to get the ship with a golf cart might help. A club mate trying to save time decided to land long and roll back to the departure. Glidervended up across the raid in a ditch. No damage or injury but prevenatable and stupid.

Every time we fly we are training ourselves how to act in a situation. Convenience should NEVER enter into our decision making process but when pilots routinely land at home with convenience in mind it becomes part of the equation.

We, the Soaring community, need more and better training much more then rules.

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

OK.......simple example.......
The Elmira/HHSC "Snowbird" contest.
No cross country.
The rules are mostly based on "exact time" and "spot landing/parking".
Some minor bonus points for altitude gain (although this may mean pilots are doing spins back down to gain more accumulated altitude points, which may be a tie breaker....yes, I have done this.)

Over many years (decades) this has been fine tuned, emphasizing "energy management" to cover the first 2 goals (time and spot landing/parking).

Yes, I am biased......having done well over the years, my group (Valley Soaring in Middletown, NY) as well as personal.
Interesting to see the peeps that are used to, "land wherever, roll to wherever, push it to where we want" vs., "practice putting into a field" which to me is a major part of the goal.
I believe many "long time flyers" as well as CFIG-s at our field drill this into students and above, all the time.

When I was an active CFI-G, part of the private test was, "landing, stopping within 200', but not past, of a predetermined mark".
I read that as, "I could land rather fast, roll 1/2 mile, stop within 200' but don't go by it".
Sorta poor training.

You can search for the Snowbird rules, there should be a link to the "landing portion" for scoring.
Should give some here some pause.

While waiting late to decide to land is poor judgement, not really knowing how to put the aircraft "exactly" where you want when you want is a major recipe for broken bits.
Taken from someone that has helped FIX broken bits later as well as watch pilots wait until their broken bits mend (assuming they survived in the first place, been there as well.....sigh....).

I won't weigh in on whether any "hard deck" will Improve crash/death numbers, I will say it won't really make a difference to me.
I have been "too low before", but no clue on when that decision could have been made. At least a few times, crap happened with weather/geography that I totally missed and I was in a bad spot.
Points didn't matter, not breaking the sailplane was paramount. Sailplane not broken, worst I had was soiled underwear.

So please, read the scoring for the HHSC Snowbird, ask yourself, "How do I think I would do?".
As an aside, on a good weekend, if you are NOT scoring around 950+ points/flight, you are looking at 4th or lower.



PS, I should answer the question in another active thread, last 20 or so contest years (went up from 10 since I have not been real active recently), worst glider damage was torn gear door hinges in a 20 landing in a potato field. Glider was flying the next day. Foliage stains are not counted as damage.
Hoping I don't do anything real stupid in the foreseeable future......doing my best, hoping to guide others along the way.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

"my point exactly Karl! :) the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs. "

Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!

John cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:37:52 PM UTC, John Cochrane wrote
>
> Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!
>
> John cochrane

The point of the hard deck surely is to try to prevent something; to try to prevent pilots from going lower than the hard deck. Once below it they are out of the game and how they then try to get home would be up to them. The question is how might the presence of the hard deck below affect the decision making of pilots flying above it - particularly those who find themselves close to dropping under it and so incurring a technical land out?

[[email protected]]

John, it is not incentivizing taking risk by adding a penalty for doing so. Punitive measures will not prevent bad decisions made 30 minutes prior. Incentivize things by adding points to stay above a hard deck. Carrot v stick type thing. Insurance companies realize they pay less claims when you reduce rates for safe driving. Legislating against stupidity doesn't work too well. Making rules for an occasional stupid decision adds complexity for no real gain. Pilots have died in contests and flying and they will continue to do so regardless of rules. We can save more lives by good training and practicing safe flight management so when we screw up it results in a good story. Safety is a process and worrying about outcome takes us away from being in the process and making the right decision for the next step in the process which if followed results in the desired outcome. glidets can be replaced, people cannot. My view is the glider is absolutely expendable if destroying it removes energy and saves lives of people in the aircraft and on the ground. Do I want to wreck the ship? Not at all but allowing for this let's me focus on the process of being able to tell the story of how I lived and bought another ship. This is my choice just as it is for a racing pilot to take a risk on a low save for points. If this pilot has such an inflated ego or lack of respect for his friends and family to take excessive risk to win a contest only he really cares about then let them as long as their actions don't interfere with others. Safety rules should be put into place where the action of one can effect another. If a pilot wants to risk their own life we should let them.

[ND]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> "my point exactly Karl! :) the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs. "
>
> Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!
>
> John cochrane

but so i don't understand john, that sounds a little flimsy or at the very least downright bureaucratic. pardon me for seeming obstinate, but if the hard deck doesn't prevent anything, and people will still have low level mishaps, then the hard deck won't improve contest safety records. if it doesn't do that, then why complicate things with this proposed rule? simply in the name of absolving the competition rules of blame? that's absurd.

anyway, we already have to sign a "WAIVER OF CLAIMS, ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY, AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT". that's me the pilot saying that i'm legally responsible for my actions and their consequences.

the person to blame for getting smoked by circling at low altitude is always the PIC, never the rules or the contest organizers. the rules never force my hand to do anything.

[[email protected]]

Amen ND

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Jon,

The scenario I have in mind is the one I’ve faced a couple of times.. You get a climb at Mt Siegel or near Heavenly and have a 30-mile glide in glassy air. As you near the steering turn you are below the minimum and the circle covers the only obvious place to climb. So what do you do? Option 1 is enter the circle, climb up and go home with a landout. Option 2 is stay out of the circle (avoid the mandatory landout if you enter), retreat to Carson and try to get a climb (or land) there. Option 3 is skirt the edge of the cylinder to avoid the mandatory landout and hope to get a climb somewhere northwest where the cylinder crosses the lake shore again. It’ll cost you several hundred feet to try but now your escape is back around the edge of the cylinder over the lake and back through the pass - or the golf course. A graduated penalty might help, but if it’s two gradual you are back to business as usual - too steep and people will do risky stuff to avoid the penalty...with escalating consequences.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

BB,

You’ve said several times now (and I agree) that the effect of the hard deck isn’t to reduce incidents of pilots attempting low saves - but you have also said it’s purpose is to eliminate the points incentive for doing so. Since we’ve reasonably established that there’s no competitive advantage to be gained from deliberately planning to go that low I find myself stuck on what the benefit is. Reducing an incentive that you admit won’t alter behavior o outcomes seems like an incentive with zero effect and therefore meaningless from a rule-making perspective.

Help me out - what’s the purpose of eliminating an incentive that’s so dominated by other factors that it doesn’t drive behavior or outcomes?

9B

[ND]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 4:14:49 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> BB,
>
> You’ve said several times now (and I agree) that the effect of the hard deck isn’t to reduce incidents of pilots attempting low saves - but you have also said it’s purpose is to eliminate the points incentive for doing so. Since we’ve reasonably established that there’s no competitive advantage to be gained from deliberately planning to go that low I find myself stuck on what the benefit is. Reducing an incentive that you admit won’t alter behavior o outcomes seems like an incentive with zero effect and therefore meaningless from a rule-making perspective.
>
> Help me out - what’s the purpose of eliminating an incentive that’s so dominated by other factors that it doesn’t drive behavior or outcomes?
>
> 9B

Boom goes the dynamite^ well said.

[MNLou]

One thing that strikes me about this conversation is the number of pilots who apparently have little or no regard for the recommendations of the Soaring Safety Foundation.

I believe the SSF recommendation is a personal hard deck of 800 - 1000 agl in flat land with good landing options below (which were evaluated and chosen at higher altitudes). If you are in the mountains or the ridges, a similar level of safety factor (however you define it) should apply.

As I understand it, the recommendation is below your personal hard deck, you stop soaring and you land - period. This is a decision you make before you launch. This applies in all cases - local XC or contest flying.

Any SSF Trustees out there wish to chime in?

Lou

[jfitch]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:04:37 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Jon,
>
> The scenario I have in mind is the one I’ve faced a couple of times. You get a climb at Mt Siegel or near Heavenly and have a 30-mile glide in glassy air. As you near the steering turn you are below the minimum and the circle covers the only obvious place to climb. So what do you do? Option 1 is enter the circle, climb up and go home with a landout. Option 2 is stay out of the circle (avoid the mandatory landout if you enter), retreat to Carson and try to get a climb (or land) there. Option 3 is skirt the edge of the cylinder to avoid the mandatory landout and hope to get a climb somewhere northwest where the cylinder crosses the lake shore again. It’ll cost you several hundred feet to try but now your escape is back around the edge of the cylinder over the lake and back through the pass - or the golf course. A graduated penalty might help, but if it’s two gradual you are back to business as usual - too steep and people will do risky stuff to avoid the penalty...with escalating consequences.
>
> 9B

Then make the cylinder 5 miles. That covers any conceivable area where you might find a climb, and any incentive to pass the cylinder to the left. There are days (very rarely) with thermal lift over Mt. Snow, you could get a climb there, exit the cylinder, re-enter and finish. On those days however, you are also very unlikely to be that low to begin with. Or move the cylinder over the Elevator or lake shore, so that any temptation to pass is to the east, which is generally safe.

I wouldn't score a landout for entering the cylinder low, but I would score a landout for not taking the cylinder legally, like any turnpoint.

[[email protected]]

I agree the hard deck concept has been well discussed (haha), with few new insights since the debate began on another thread. What HAS been revealed are a couple of philospohical differences.

1. I got in trouble very early on with this statement: "Let's be honest. If soaring were a zero-risk activity, like video games, it wouldn't have the same appeal." I'm not risk prone nor do I enjoy scaring myself. But mastering the risks of soaring is one of its appeals to me. That's a philosophy with which not everyone agrees, and it has significant impacts on rules and tasking. For the record, I hate low saves--which I consider as anything below about 1,000 AGL--and don't do them very often (I've only gotten up from under 500' once in 50+ years). I hate landouts even more, but they're part of soaring; I stopped counting at about 100 (blush). To date I've only damaged a glider once (hit a hidden rock in a pasture) but I know the risks are higher. It's obvious that pilots think about the concept of risk quite differently.

2. To Dale Bush's point, we've traditionally tested certain skills and rewarded pilots on that basis, including navigating before GPS, final glides before the finish cylinder, and finding good thermals before leeching became popular. We're chipping away at those skills to the point where some pilots don't want fly at a site like Mifflin or Nephi or Minden because local knowledge is a factor. The ultimate effect of this trend might be soaring competition that occurs on only the best days at "non-technical" sites with tasks that keep pilots within range of airports, and that penalize or disallow risky behavior to a greater extent even than the hard deck contemplates (e..g., being out of glide range of a listed safe landing field). That's not a trend I welcome but times are changing.

Like Erik, I'm a consultant. Before you start designing something, it's important to define the mission, the vision for it over some time period, the objectives, and the scope of what will be included. Some of the points made here are practical ones: i.e., the parties agree philosophically but disagree on the solution (e.g., we should try to stop pilots from making foolish errors, hurting themselves, and driving our insurance rates up and the hard deck is a good/poor step). Other differences are more philosophical (e.g.., whether the risks of competitive soaring make it more or less appealing) and those debates are no less valid. But some disagreements are really philosophical but the parties debate the merits/efficacy of a solution such as a hard deck because that's easier.

Chip Bearden

[jfitch]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:14:49 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> BB,
>
> You’ve said several times now (and I agree) that the effect of the hard deck isn’t to reduce incidents of pilots attempting low saves - but you have also said it’s purpose is to eliminate the points incentive for doing so. Since we’ve reasonably established that there’s no competitive advantage to be gained from deliberately planning to go that low I find myself stuck on what the benefit is. Reducing an incentive that you admit won’t alter behavior o outcomes seems like an incentive with zero effect and therefore meaningless from a rule-making perspective.
>
> Help me out - what’s the purpose of eliminating an incentive that’s so dominated by other factors that it doesn’t drive behavior or outcomes?
>
> 9B

There are two separate aspects to the hard deck. One is to attempt to prevent some behavior. This is in my opinion a fools errand. The other is to keep from tempting others to that behavior who would not ordinarily engage, because it is rewarded with a win. You have invested a week or two weeks and 2000 miles of driving into a contest. You are doing well on the 13th day, but choose not to thermal at 500 ft and land out. Another pilot circles in the same spot at 400 ft and gets away, thrashing you on points that day.

There are numerous stories up thread about this happening.

The direction of encouragement is towards the most risky behavior that survives. We are bottom fishing the behavior continuum for trophies. If the pilot gets away from 400 ft, he doesn't need a retrieve, but the pilot that gave up at 500 ft shouldn't be punished by 5 places in the standings because he chose prudence. The problem in my view is not that saving from 400 ft is slow, there is no doubt about that. But it is very fast compared to a landout, as scored by our points system. On a day when everyone gets back, the couple of guys who dug out from 400 ft are likely way down the board. On a day when they are the only guys who made it back, they place 1 and 2.

There is a secondary aspect: I believe one really should be able to practice for competition. If the 400 ft save is part of competition, then 400 ft thermalling needs to be practiced. I'd like to see an attempt to round up 5 unacquainted instructors from across the country, with a financial interest in their 2 place trainer, who would gladly give instruction in 400 ft saves over say 10 randomly chosen, unfamiliar landing sites. I'll submit you cannot find those, because it will be deemed too dangerous. If it is too dangerous to practice, why is it allowed in competition?

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 7:18:12 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Steve: Off field landings are all well and good, but there is simply nowhere to land on the north side of the Lake Tahoe basin. Zero, zilch, nada. One landing has been made on the golf course, but it looks mighty chancy to say nothing of the golfers.
> >
> > Both: The general idea of a last turnpoint with minimum altitude, as practiced in the SGP, has a lot of merit, when there are no good fields close to the airport for blown final glides. It would also allow finish lines such as we had at Uvalde without some of the amazingly close calls we also had at Uvalde.
> >
> > John cochrane
>
> Yes, John I know that. I wasn't responding to Jon's post about crossing the lake (We were typing at the same time I guess). Landing out surely always requires a place that's suitable.
>
> Jumping to the problem of what to do about Truckee... How about simply using a 30 mi finish cylinder. That would allow us to have a full day racing task there. If you can't get home due to west wind washout, you just land Minden or Carson without any disrupting effect on the scoresheet and without any daredevil temptations. The tugs at Minden would be set on ready alert for late hour missions or next morning missions if you bring your toothbrush. Or, for the crewed amongst us, crews might even be pre-dispatched to Minden. Just a thought.

The problem with a 30 mile finish cylinder is it virtually guarantees no one returns to Truckee. You have the blessing of a dedicated crew that will go get you where ever you land. That's pretty rare these days. :)

We can have a full racing day if the weather cooperates for once. Our "normal" good weather there allows a finish into Truckee at 5 or 5:30. the OLC guys will often land at 6 or 7. The problem we have had for the last couple of years is the weather gods are looking at the SSA racing schedule and playing practical jokes on us.

[Branko Stojkovic]

I think I read "only" 150 of the 263 prior posts here, so my apologies if the following arguments have already been made:

The proposed hard deck would in some cases reduce, but not remove the motivation for attempting a low save. In most cases it wouldn't make any difference to what the pilot decides to do.

In cases where there are significant patches of unlandable terrain (for example around Eprata, WA), having to consider the hard deck when deciding on the best course of action at a low altitude could significantly increase pilot's workload and stress level.

For an inexperienced pilot, flying a task with a hard deck programmed into the flight computer may offer a false sense of extra security, especially when flying over patches of unlandable terrain.

Considering only the above three safety aspects of the hard deck, I would say that its unintended consequences would most likely outweigh gains. So, even without considering a number non-safety related issues that many have expressed in this thread, from rules being already too complex all the way to Nancy Pelosi, I'd say that the hard deck idea is not something that should be implemented.

Focusing on pilot training and having knowledgeable and reasonable people (i.e., no big egos) in charge of contest management is the best way improve contest safety, like they do in at Region 8 in Ephrata (and many other sites that I haven't been to).

Branko Stojkovic
XYU

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

“There are two separate aspects to the hard deck. One is to attempt to prevent some behavior. This is in my opinion a fools errand.”

I think we agree on that.

“The other is to keep from tempting others to that behavior who would not ordinarily engage, because it is rewarded with a win.....You are doing well on the 13th day, but choose not to thermal at 500 ft and land out. Another pilot circles in the same spot at 400 ft and gets away, thrashing you on points that day.

There are numerous stories up thread about this happening.”

That seems to contradict point #1. Either it is an effective disincentive or it isn’t. I also dispute that people thermal low in valleys and win (590’ above the valleys is where the hard deck applies - unless you want them higher up and more broadly which wasn’t BB’s proposal, though it may be yours). I also dispute the assertion that neophytes are somehow mimicking low thermalling (in valley bottoms) as an explicit copy-cat strategy that regularly moves them up places - at least not at the 350-500 foot range where the hard deck as proposed applies.

I think what some pilots do in my experience is head out over sketchy areas - maybe chasing a cloud - and guys like me refuse to go. I have many examples climbing at 2-knots at the edge of a glide to the last good field while a bunch of other pilots head several more miles into boony-town to snag an 8-knotter. Never were any of us less than 2000’ from the ground. I just don’t see a practical way to go through a task area and make judgments about where the last good field is and how much is a safe glide angle under any of a range of wind and weather conditions for the purpose of setting up a hard deck. We can’t even get organizers to systematically vet waypoint files for that sort of thing, though some occasionally try (Andy looks at his watch and wonders how long it will be before Ron Gleason rings in).

The place where there seems to be some traction is in a few cases where there is a clear hazard in a task area and risky behavior can save either many tens of minutes or a landout. Here some targeted task design or use of .sua files might make everyone a bit safer and happier. Truckee is the one example that a lot of people seem to agree about - there may be others. The trick there is getting a good design that doesn’t create new problems.. BTW it’s not clear to me that a 15-mile finish would guarantee that fewer people finish - maybe just on days where finishing requires taking the elevator low. That’s probably a good thing. Take the elevator after you finish if it’s within you margin of safety.

Andy - 9B

[jfitch]

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 5:18:01 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> “There are two separate aspects to the hard deck. One is to attempt to prevent some behavior. This is in my opinion a fools errand.”
>
> I think we agree on that.
>
> “The other is to keep from tempting others to that behavior who would not ordinarily engage, because it is rewarded with a win.....You are doing well on the 13th day, but choose not to thermal at 500 ft and land out.. Another pilot circles in the same spot at 400 ft and gets away, thrashing you on points that day.
>
> There are numerous stories up thread about this happening.”
>
> That seems to contradict point #1. Either it is an effective disincentive or it isn’t. I also dispute that people thermal low in valleys and win (590’ above the valleys is where the hard deck applies - unless you want them higher up and more broadly which wasn’t BB’s proposal, though it may be yours). I also dispute the assertion that neophytes are somehow mimicking low thermalling (in valley bottoms) as an explicit copy-cat strategy that regularly moves them up places - at least not at the 350-500 foot range where the hard deck as proposed applies.
>
> I think what some pilots do in my experience is head out over sketchy areas - maybe chasing a cloud - and guys like me refuse to go. I have many examples climbing at 2-knots at the edge of a glide to the last good field while a bunch of other pilots head several more miles into boony-town to snag an 8-knotter. Never were any of us less than 2000’ from the ground. I just don’t see a practical way to go through a task area and make judgments about where the last good field is and how much is a safe glide angle under any of a range of wind and weather conditions for the purpose of setting up a hard deck. We can’t even get organizers to systematically vet waypoint files for that sort of thing, though some occasionally try (Andy looks at his watch and wonders how long it will be before Ron Gleason rings in).
>
> The place where there seems to be some traction is in a few cases where there is a clear hazard in a task area and risky behavior can save either many tens of minutes or a landout. Here some targeted task design or use of .sua files might make everyone a bit safer and happier. Truckee is the one example that a lot of people seem to agree about - there may be others. The trick there is getting a good design that doesn’t create new problems. BTW it’s not clear to me that a 15-mile finish would guarantee that fewer people finish - maybe just on days where finishing requires taking the elevator low. That’s probably a good thing. Take the elevator after you finish if it’s within you margin of safety.
>
> Andy - 9B

As pointed out several times, some will circle at 300' to avoid a retrieve even if scored a landout at 500'. There have been several anecdotes related up thread of people doing a low save and going on to win.

But my main problem is the "heading out over sketchy areas" and has little to do with 500' saves. I've seen it many times and this is the worry expressed by my non-racing pilot friends. A rule discouraging that might encourage a closer look at viable landing sites pre-contest and that would be a good thing. Many out west which look good on paper or from the air will soil your pants if you walk the ground.

30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:31:25 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>
> 30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.

My typo - I meant return to Truckee.

You could have the finish at 10,000' MSL & 15 miles which is ~35:1 to the edge of the normal finish cylinder. Sort of a permanent safety finish.

9B

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

All this hard deck discussion is giving me a soft deck. I am going to start a new discussion on dreams

[BobW]

> But my main problem is the "heading out over sketchy areas" and has little
> to do with 500' saves. I've seen it many times and this is the worry
> expressed by my non-racing pilot friends. A rule discouraging that might
> encourage a closer look at viable landing sites pre-contest and that would
> be a good thing. Many out west which look good on paper or from the air
> will soil your pants if you walk the ground.

Man! I guess we all have a need to worry about SOME thing or other. I got my
license in MD; wound up doing the bulk of my soaring (and OFLs) west of
Amarillo (TX) and east of central Utah. MY biggest worry was/remains being
able to fly the same ship tomorrow. Amazingly, that worry kept me from
"heading out over sketchy areas"...at least when I had the slightest doubt
that my "tomorrow" goal was at risk if I did so. Soared over the oilfields
west of Hobbs, above/across the Texas breaks of the Canadian River, throughout
most of central CO mountains...IOW, above LOTS of "essentially unlandable
terrain." My worst OFL accident has been a dirt-clod-poked-hole in my 1-26's
fabric when in my early-on, tyronic, ignorance I failed to comprehend until
short final, there was a *difference* between "freshly plowed" and
"plowed/harrowed/raked" brown fields. (Doh!)

Somehow, I doubt something as arcane as the "contest hard deck" being
discussed in this thread will have "an obviously measurable effect" on the
quantity of busted ships if in fact "the worry expressed by my non-racing
pilot friends" is insufficient to prevent them from (apparently) acknowledging
that worry (and presumably, soaring with that acknowledgement in mind) when
they are NOT participating in a contest, yet NOT flying similarly should they
enter a contest. I respectfully suggest anyone knowing such XC pilots point
out to them that logical disconnect if they ever DO choose to fly in a contest
and continue to reason similarly. What am I missing? Are (arguably,
often-casually read/absorbed/understood by non-podium-contenders) contest
rules *seriously* considered a more powerful influence on pilot behavior than
the obvious, immediate, economic-/health-risks "imminently-possible downsides"
associated with every off-field landing?

Bob - color me genyoowinely puzzled - W.

P.S. For the record, I'm not trying to re-generate the previously-plowed
intellectual ground debating "anarchy vs. rules." I understand "the general
need for rules" - Hey! I happen to like our U.S. Constitution, f'r'example,
wry chuckle. What's swimming about somewhat amorphously in my skull are
thoughts along the lines of: "bureaucratic complexity," "diminishing returns,"
choosing to *very*-indirectly address a (training) problem, etc.

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

[Steve Koerner]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:03:13 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:31:25 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> >
> > 30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.
>
> My typo - I meant return to Truckee.
>
> You could have the finish at 10,000' MSL & 15 miles which is ~35:1 to the edge of the normal finish cylinder. Sort of a permanent safety finish.
>
> 9B

Yes, that's how I was thinking of it -- a permanent safety finish. Set the diameter and height such that it is not essential to return to Truckee valley for a finish yet will not make it significantly more difficult to complete a return to the cool pines if you don't have a motor. We could even set the finish ring all the out to the Pinenuts. That would be odd and unusual. But odd and unusual isn't a reason not to do it when it solves two big problems.

[[email protected]]

Woke up this morning and for the first time in weeks (months?), there were NO NEW "HARD DECK" POSTS. It couldn't last. And didn't. But we're close, I think, now that we all agree. ;)

Chip Bearden

[jfitch]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:57:46 AM UTC-8, BobW wrote:
> What am I missing? Are (arguably,
> often-casually read/absorbed/understood by non-podium-contenders) contest
> rules *seriously* considered a more powerful influence on pilot behavior than
> the obvious, immediate, economic-/health-risks "imminently-possible downsides"
> associated with every off-field landing?
>

If you've not seen participants taking substantially higher risks in competition than they otherwise would, you haven't been to many competitions. Including but not limited to soaring competitions. As a pop metric, the Google search "taking risk in sports competition" returns 106 million results including countless academic papers studying the subject. That's one the the major reasons there are rules in competitions.

And - one more time - the rules may not have any effect on some competitors, but it prevents everyone else from having to do the same thing to be competitive. The argument that the individual pilot is solely responsible for their own safety was lost when parachutes were required, and the presence or lack of one has no possibility of affecting others scores or behavior.

[jfitch]

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:17:54 AM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:03:13 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:31:25 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> > >
> > > 30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.
> >
> > My typo - I meant return to Truckee.
> >
> > You could have the finish at 10,000' MSL & 15 miles which is ~35:1 to the edge of the normal finish cylinder. Sort of a permanent safety finish.
> >
> > 9B
>
> Yes, that's how I was thinking of it -- a permanent safety finish. Set the diameter and height such that it is not essential to return to Truckee valley for a finish yet will not make it significantly more difficult to complete a return to the cool pines if you don't have a motor. We could even set the finish ring all the out to the Pinenuts. That would be odd and unusual. But odd and unusual isn't a reason not to do it when it solves two big problems.

Yeah, that would do it. The last 15 miles are pretty much skill free anyway, so not measuring much except the performance of your glider.

[BobW]

>> What am I missing? Are (arguably, often-casually
>> read/absorbed/understood by non-podium-contenders) contest rules
>> *seriously* considered a more powerful influence on pilot behavior than
>> the obvious, immediate, economic-/health-risks "imminently-possible
>> downsides" associated with every off-field landing?
>>
>
> If you've not seen participants taking substantially higher risks in
> competition than they otherwise would, you haven't been to many
> competitions.

Man - while this may be an exercise in intellectually punching an infinitely
large pillow, the above response completely misses (ignores?) the point I was
seeking to make. I don't dispute the validity of accepting "higher risk in
competition" attitude as being a real thing. I simply am wondering if it is
being *seriously* argued that the simultaneously-at-issue (to Joe Competition
pilot) potential life-altering/-ending stakes associated with bozo OFL-related
decision-making are likely to be in any way brought *more* to his attention by
the presence of such a truly arcane rule than the physically omni-present and
unignorable facts of OFL life. I, for one, doubt it would, but if the
"Contestistas" want to find out, have at it!
- - - - - -

> And - one more time - the rules may not have any effect on some
> competitors, but it prevents everyone else from having to do the same
> thing to be competitive.

Say what? I thought this canard had already been thoroughly debunked
up-thread, by more than one competition-experienced pilot. Maybe I missed it,
so feel free to tell me again how many "western U.S. competitions" have been
won due to the presence of those weak-but-sufficiently-consistent contest days
that were won by someone actually taking advantage of "below-proposed hard
deck" rules.
- - - - - -

> The argument that the individual pilot is solely responsible for their own
> safety was lost when parachutes were required, and the presence or lack of
> one has no possibility of affecting others scores or behavior.

Equating mandated parachutes to a mandated hard deck seems a truly
torturous/"stretching" analogy to me, but in any event I wasn't aware I made
any such "parallel claim" (or argument or even vague suggestion) along that
line. I simply don't think the proposed rule will have any actual effect on
your western U.S. contest placings. I'll be leaving this thread now; my
pillow-punching demons have been exorcised. :)


Bob W.

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

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

Another reason for a hard deck - leaping elk.

http://www.wral.com/leaping-elk-crashes-low-flying-research-helicopter/17336678/

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Bojack J4]

Amen, Rick. Great sensible words.