Hard Deck

[Jim White[_3_]]

Time to change the subject line?

I have been thinking about the hard deck idea. Possibly fine in flat land
soaring but I am not sure it adds much when ridge flying.

I perceive another problem: Turbos are even more dangerous near the ground
than pure gliders. I may be happy in my 27 at 500ft but in a turbo?

Setting a 1000ft deck because that is safer for turbos will take away the
advantage that real gliders have in this zone. Many pure pilots would say
this advantage goes some of the way to make up for the additional
opportunities turbo pilots have in competition.

Setting a turbo deck for everyone will force everyone to go to the dark
side!

Jim

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

As ex CFIG, how low do you want to recover from a stall/spin?
For me higher the better......

[Clay[_5_]]

Would a flat 100 point penalty for each violation make it more palatable? Again, serial offenders would be exposed, which would be beneficial if they are the ones more likely to have an incident (I have no idea if that is so, but would seem likely).

I also think the start cylinder can be a place where it's very tempting to thermal low, no one wants to relight in front of the entire field, slow up the launch, etc. Tough be be penalized before you're even out on course, but I can think of one pilot who might still be alive if that were the case.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.

The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.

Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.

These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.

Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.

Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.

Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

> I also think the start cylinder can be a place where it's very tempting to thermal low, no one wants to relight in front of the entire field, slow up the launch, etc. Tough be be penalized before you're even out on course, but I can think of one pilot who might still be alive if that were the case..

It's situational. At small contests with slow launches, I agree it's a temptation to hang on over the airport hoping for a save. But I've radioed ops, then given up above 1,000', pulled the brakes, and landed quickly at places like Hobbs when the field has launched because it can be faster to get back to 2,000' via a towplane than it is to climb up slowly with full water.

Chip Bearden

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Yes, 5 miles around the contest site is a hole in the hard deck, allowing relights. If CDs want to penalize low thermaling at the contest site, they can do that separately.

Or, hard deck applies only after start.

[jfitch]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 11:00:05 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
> Time to change the subject line?
>
> I have been thinking about the hard deck idea. Possibly fine in flat land
> soaring but I am not sure it adds much when ridge flying.
>
> I perceive another problem: Turbos are even more dangerous near the ground
> than pure gliders. I may be happy in my 27 at 500ft but in a turbo?
>
> Setting a 1000ft deck because that is safer for turbos will take away the
> advantage that real gliders have in this zone. Many pure pilots would say
> this advantage goes some of the way to make up for the additional
> opportunities turbo pilots have in competition.
>
> Setting a turbo deck for everyone will force everyone to go to the dark
> side!
>
> Jim

Jim, on the turbo thing: exactly the opposite is true. Non-motorglider pilots allege that motorglider pilots have a competitive advantage because they can overfly unlandable terrain low, taking on faith (and it is Faith) that the turbo will save them while the non-motorglider does not have that option. The hard deck prevents anyone from gaining points by flying that low in that location, eliminating any perceived advantage for the turbo pilot.

[MNLou]

If one were setting a hard deck so that windmill start turbos were at a "safe" altitude, the hard deck would be somewhere about 1500 agl.

I won't pull mine out any lower than that unless I am on a long high downwind to a runway.

YMMV

Lou

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

OK, question for everyone to ponder.

Many years ago we had a "backside of the ridge" day at Ridge Soaring. Last turnpoint was Williamsport, return to Ridge Soaring.
Just before the airport, the ridge rises a bunch, but we were on the wrong side (KS in the lead, SM second, me a little behind and a little lower.....).
Suddenly, KS made a hard right turn towards the ridge followed by SM. I figured they knew something I didn't so, either we get through or 3 broken ASW-20's in one spot.
There was a low saddle just before the rising terrain, with some ridge speed (which we all had) it was to make sure you cleared the clothesline in someone's side yard.
Then, terrain follow down the backside to the finish, from memory, we were likely 800' above the airport 1-2 miles from the finish with plenty of speed.

No issues, perfectly safe.
If the current idea of a hard deck was in place, would we all be landed out?
Ground clearance was "maybe" a wingspan but with plenty of "zoomie speed" if need be.

Just asking.......;-)

[JS[_5_]]

The three of you landed out, Charlie. You're not allowed to do your own energy management.
The hard deck allows you to store energy as height, but doesn't take energy stored as velocity into account.
Jim


On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 8:28:39 AM UTC-8, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> OK, question for everyone to ponder.
>
> Many years ago we had a "backside of the ridge" day at Ridge Soaring. Last turnpoint was Williamsport, return to Ridge Soaring.
> Just before the airport, the ridge rises a bunch, but we were on the wrong side (KS in the lead, SM second, me a little behind and a little lower.....).
> Suddenly, KS made a hard right turn towards the ridge followed by SM. I figured they knew something I didn't so, either we get through or 3 broken ASW-20's in one spot.
> There was a low saddle just before the rising terrain, with some ridge speed (which we all had) it was to make sure you cleared the clothesline in someone's side yard.
> Then, terrain follow down the backside to the finish, from memory, we were likely 800' above the airport 1-2 miles from the finish with plenty of speed.
>
> No issues, perfectly safe.
> If the current idea of a hard deck was in place, would we all be landed out?
> Ground clearance was "maybe" a wingspan but with plenty of "zoomie speed" if need be.
>
> Just asking.......;-)

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 8:28:39 AM UTC-8, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> OK, question for everyone to ponder.
>
> Many years ago we had a "backside of the ridge" day at Ridge Soaring. Last turnpoint was Williamsport, return to Ridge Soaring.
> Just before the airport, the ridge rises a bunch, but we were on the wrong side (KS in the lead, SM second, me a little behind and a little lower......).
> Suddenly, KS made a hard right turn towards the ridge followed by SM. I figured they knew something I didn't so, either we get through or 3 broken ASW-20's in one spot.
> There was a low saddle just before the rising terrain, with some ridge speed (which we all had) it was to make sure you cleared the clothesline in someone's side yard.
> Then, terrain follow down the backside to the finish, from memory, we were likely 800' above the airport 1-2 miles from the finish with plenty of speed.
>
> No issues, perfectly safe.
> If the current idea of a hard deck was in place, would we all be landed out?
> Ground clearance was "maybe" a wingspan but with plenty of "zoomie speed" if need be.
>
> Just asking.......;-)

Without knowing more, hard to say. It is interesting that you thought you might die, but followed them anyway :). "No issues, perfectly safe" - after the fact. In a ridgey area, the ridges would typically be poking up through the hard deck, so crossing one would not be a violation. Low saves on the top of ridges are not what the hard deck is intended to non-reward. If the hoped for lift does not materialize, you can normally dive away to either side and safety. Low saves in the bottom of a rocky or forested valley are the target. That is simply Roulette - if the hoped for lift materializes you survive and win the day, if not you break the glider and yourself. I don't care (in the abstract) about the latter, but the former is a reward for risk.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

No. Proposed hard deck is over the valley floor. Ridges stick out, and you're free to do what you want over the hills. The hard deck fairs in to the finish cylinder if there is one, or has a hole in it allowing line finish if not. I can't think of a simple implementable way to remove contest point incentive for silly stuff in the mountains.

For others who might be inspired by this story, one should point out that shooting saddles with a wingspan or less, using stored energy, is generally a dicey maneuver, and many contest pilots have come to grief or an untimely end trying it. Following great pilots just a little bit lower, when you don't know their plan, and when those pilots clear obstacles by a wingspan or less, is also an iffy tactic. If you following KS and SM, recognize that they often know of one field up around the corner up ahead, which has room for one glider. You don't know where that field is.

John Cochrane

[Dave Nadler]

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 8:28:39 AM UTC-8, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> I figured they knew something I didn't so,
> either we get through or 3 broken ASW-20's in one spot.

Absolutely incredibly stupid.

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 12:42:33 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> It is interesting that you thought you might die, but followed them anyway :).

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 12:48:16 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Following great pilots just a little bit lower, when you don't know their
> plan, and when those pilots clear obstacles by a wingspan or less, is also
> an iffy tactic.

If you are not absolutely clear how people get killed blindly following
other pilots, you may want to read:
http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf

PS: One of the experts mentioned above was the pilot that made a wee mistake
about which ridge was which in the above-linked article...

[[email protected]]

, I'm landing NOW". Each step of each flight, think "Where's the next field, and how far can I go before I might not be able to reach it ?" This is pretty basic, but we haven't been flying this way."

Dave thanks for posting your article. I had read it before bur forgot about it's existence. Fantastic practical insight directly applicable.

If I was to try and distill one single reason for why we see guys getting themselves in a pickle today, irregardless of soaring location, and irregardless of the forensics of their accident be it stall spin or connecting with a rock face, I would have to say it is because of the tremendous performance of our midern ships.

Many of the guys racing today have never experienced what its like to race a low/mid performance machines, and hence they have been so conditioned to the great long legs and benign handling of modern ships that they have never learned the lessons needed when flying those poorer ships. Namely, before committing to a path, always having a way out (a field, an option, an alternative), learning to outland with minimum energy and minimum rolling distance. Expecting the unexpected, "what do I do if that ridge isn't working?" Etc.

Secondly, due to "perceived" performance, guys either don't know how to "change gears" or put it off till no options exist. The last resort gear change I am referring to is pure survival mode. Yes guys mostly know how to slow it up when conditions get iffy, but do they know how to give-it-up while not giving up on flying the bird. Theres a time to stop racing and start scratching, theres a time to stop scratching and start landing, and if both of those times have past unrecognized, theres a time to put her down in a CONTROLLED MANNER with minimum energy knowing your gonna bust up the machine seriously, but you may save your ass in the process.

I have found that pilots who have a healthy amount of xc experience in lesser performing ships tend to be safer more conservative fliers once they upgrade (exceptions exist). They have mostly had to forsee getting across rough stretches of terrain with crappy L/D. They have experienced a bunch of true outlandings, I'm talking about bean fields not away-from-home airports, and they have been forced to make "gear changing" decisions much earlier and much more frequently than is necessary with the better performing ships.

All of this experience has conditioned them to make better, earlier decisions.
Dan

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:01:01 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:

> Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas..
>
> John Cochrane

I'll nitpick the carve-out for ridge routes less than 500' above the valley floor. You don't want pilots stuck between the ridge and an SUA that they can't get over. Also, how low off the top of the ridge are you going to carve? Not every ridge day lets you fly over the crest. Once you make exceptions it means that someone has to go through and design the exceptions. Plus, ridge routes aren't the only gotchas.

There are other specific areas and situations I can think of that are problematic. Some of you will recognize them if you've flow the area. They are mostly equivalent to the Lake Tahoe example Jon mentioned - unlandable escarpments where the actual landout options require clearing the edge of the escarpment: 1) The Scofield Island turnpoint on the Wasatch plateau and most of the territory to the north of it in the Nephi task area, 2) the 20 miles of unlandable plateau to the west of the Wayne Wonderland turnpoint to the east of Parowan, 3) much of the escarpment south of Brian Head where the landouts are either a long glide down to Kanab, or though a canyon out to Cedar City or Hurricane, 4) most of the territory east of Mount Shasta as well as the wide, low pass that gets you to the home valley in the Montague task area, 4) the entire upper valley on the other side of the ridge by New Castle - if you shoot the gap you have an easy glide to the airport, but you have to clear the gap. It's a common finish route so you have to use the lower airport valley as the floor of the hard deck, but that leaves the upper valley without a hard deck. I've been low there and at least one contest accident was there IIRC.

Now, you could ignore these areas and just leave them without hard decks so that you don't have to have an expert committee of local racing pilots go through the entire task areas crafting custom SUA files for every single gotcha. In any case all of this would require a lot of education of pilots that being above the hard deck is not the same as having a landout option. I've done the landout option exercise using GlidePlan to set minimum altitude rings for the entire Montague task area based on a reasonable glide angle (35:1) to a known landing spot (mostly airports, but also landouts I scouted to fill the "no landing option" gaps). It's a sobering exercise - particularly when the task area is significantly unlandable). It also leads to a map that requires careful study to use effectively in real-world situations - situations where your mental energy might be better spent on other things..

While I wouldn't recommend it, theoretically we could contemplate setting SUAs so that every square mile of a task area always had a glide to a known good landing spot - or even an airport. It's how I typically fly and I know I pay a price for it competing with pilots who don't. Many times I watch other pilots dive into areas where I know there are no good landing options, only to connect with 8-knot climbs while I'm taking 2.5 knots back where it's safe - for me at least. I don't find any thrill in contemplating getting away with that kind of dice-rolling.

More broadly, since I've actually attempted this exercise myself as described above, I don't think it's all that easy for pilots to interpret a set of SUA's that are set up to regulate altitude from a top-down-view moving map display. Most SUA's are set to restrict horizontal position. We have class A, but that's the same everywhere so there's no looking at your altitude, then the map to find the local hard deck, followed by a search for the next lowest step, then back out to try to determine if the lower step that might buy you an extra 500-1000' in hard deck clearance actually takes you away from landout options, rather than towards them. I could easily see uneven terrain that encourages pilots to "circle the drain" of SUAs into areas that are more hazardous rather than less.

Lastly, mostly these ideas are intended to deal with relatively rare behavior and (if I hear people correctly) not even an attempt to stop that behavior, but simply the competitive impact of dice-rolling to win. If that's the case more selective and focused use of SUAs for specific risky behavior at specific locations that has an obvious competitive benefit might be a better way to go. Sergio's elevator at Lake Tahoe is pretty clearly one that I just won't do unless I'm high enough to avoid a lake landing. I've seen many flight traces of pilots who effectively committed to ditching if the elevator wasn't working - or their motor working (that one's a whole new thread).

It's not really clear to me whether there is even clarity on the objective here. It could be: 1) Discourage pilots from ever getting out of glide range to an airport, 2) Discourage pilots from ever getting out of glide range of a laudable spot, 3) Discourage pilots from circling too low in an attempt to make a save for points (but only for cases where the pilot doesn't also care about avoiding a retrieve, in which case a penalty wouldn't matter), 4) Stop pilots from placing well in contests from doing 1, 2, or 3 - but which one? For the record, I think 1, 2 or 3 either aren't practical to implement or aren't ineffective incentives, and 4 depends on on having some sort of sense of which types of behavior are specific, intentional acts of risk taking for competitive advantage. I don't think making a low save falls into the category of an intentional act very often. If you're that low most often your day is shot. The Lake Tahoe example is a notable exception - maybe we should focus on that.

It's a complex topic.

Andy Blackburn
9B

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

I made it sound a bit dramatic, my bad.
If you know the site, I assumed we would ridge run around the high point and then pop over and to the airport. The debrief later stated that it would make for a "too fast" decent that close to the airport (sorta like New Castle coming up from Blacksburg on the ridge, don't terrain follow to the deck since you WILL exceed redline).
Where we went over, we could have comfortably cleared the higher bits on either side of the saddle, the saddle allowed no slowing down and a shallower decent on the back side.
The post was more of a, would we be landed?

Anyway, got an answer, thanks.

[[email protected]]

.....PS: One of the experts mentioned above was the pilot that made a wee mistake
about which ridge was which in the above-linked article...

Dave I'd go easy on the naming of names here. You might end up with a few fingers pointed back your way regarding "wee little mistakes" made in the past lol.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

On 1/27/2018 12:00 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:

<Germane lead-in info snipped...>

> If you are not absolutely clear how people get killed blindly following
> other pilots, you may want to read:
> http://www.nadler.com/public/Nadler_On_Safety_Soaring_May_1987.pdf

Well worth (re-)absorbing; I just did it for about the tenth time. And at the
(probably WAY too high) risk of having sardonic humor be completely
misinterpreted...arithmetic says there was a 1.8% *improvement* from 1985 to
1986 in that particular regional contest's broken ship safety stats. (1985 -
4/31; 1986 5/45) So today, 30-some years later and continuing the same
improvement rate, that particular contest should be darn near 60%
"ship-safer," no? Insurance rates plummet wildly!!! (Not!)

More seriously, IMO the rather amorphous thought, "I NEED to make an active
decision!" if incorporated into every soaring pilot's general arsenal, would
go a long way to improving our collective safety record. (I forget whether it
was former World Champion AJ Smith or George Moffat who pithily said
[paraphrasing]: If you're not making at least one active decision every 60
seconds, you're [losing time, screwing the pooch, etc.].)

*Actively* making the decision to (say) switch from "doing something else" to
"entering my pre-planned pattern for my pre-selected field NOW!" is the
pilot's responsibility...to him/herself, to their family, to their friends, to
the soaring community at large, to the ship. (Even so, I doubt whether repair
shop proprietors need fear going out of business from lack of work.) Whether
"NOW" occurs at (say) 800' agl above the home field or somewhere else is by
comparison relatively unimportant. Hard deck (whether yours or contest
management's), terrain-induced concern or fear, instructor's number, whatever
- getting into the habit of ALWAYS making that sort of in-flight decision
each flight - maybe even more than once, as you scratch along - surely is more
safety important (to Joe Pilot anyway) than is not forgetting to lower the
gear, something about which every retract pilot tries to obsess over at one
time or another in their flying career. Who'd'a thunk a shoe company ad would
ever have real-world applicability to the soaring world? Just do it! :-)

Bob W.

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

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 12:36:09 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:01:01 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
>
> > Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> I'll nitpick the carve-out for ridge routes less than 500' above the valley floor. You don't want pilots stuck between the ridge and an SUA that they can't get over. Also, how low off the top of the ridge are you going to carve? Not every ridge day lets you fly over the crest. Once you make exceptions it means that someone has to go through and design the exceptions. Plus, ridge routes aren't the only gotchas.
>
> There are other specific areas and situations I can think of that are problematic. Some of you will recognize them if you've flow the area. They are mostly equivalent to the Lake Tahoe example Jon mentioned - unlandable escarpments where the actual landout options require clearing the edge of the escarpment: 1) The Scofield Island turnpoint on the Wasatch plateau and most of the territory to the north of it in the Nephi task area, 2) the 20 miles of unlandable plateau to the west of the Wayne Wonderland turnpoint to the east of Parowan, 3) much of the escarpment south of Brian Head where the landouts are either a long glide down to Kanab, or though a canyon out to Cedar City or Hurricane, 4) most of the territory east of Mount Shasta as well as the wide, low pass that gets you to the home valley in the Montague task area, 4) the entire upper valley on the other side of the ridge by New Castle - if you shoot the gap you have an easy glide to the airport, but you have to clear the gap. It's a common finish route so you have to use the lower airport valley as the floor of the hard deck, but that leaves the upper valley without a hard deck. I've been low there and at least one contest accident was there IIRC.
>
> Now, you could ignore these areas and just leave them without hard decks so that you don't have to have an expert committee of local racing pilots go through the entire task areas crafting custom SUA files for every single gotcha. In any case all of this would require a lot of education of pilots that being above the hard deck is not the same as having a landout option. I've done the landout option exercise using GlidePlan to set minimum altitude rings for the entire Montague task area based on a reasonable glide angle (35:1) to a known landing spot (mostly airports, but also landouts I scouted to fill the "no landing option" gaps). It's a sobering exercise - particularly when the task area is significantly unlandable). It also leads to a map that requires careful study to use effectively in real-world situations - situations where your mental energy might be better spent on other things.
>
> While I wouldn't recommend it, theoretically we could contemplate setting SUAs so that every square mile of a task area always had a glide to a known good landing spot - or even an airport. It's how I typically fly and I know I pay a price for it competing with pilots who don't. Many times I watch other pilots dive into areas where I know there are no good landing options, only to connect with 8-knot climbs while I'm taking 2.5 knots back where it's safe - for me at least. I don't find any thrill in contemplating getting away with that kind of dice-rolling.
>
> More broadly, since I've actually attempted this exercise myself as described above, I don't think it's all that easy for pilots to interpret a set of SUA's that are set up to regulate altitude from a top-down-view moving map display. Most SUA's are set to restrict horizontal position. We have class A, but that's the same everywhere so there's no looking at your altitude, then the map to find the local hard deck, followed by a search for the next lowest step, then back out to try to determine if the lower step that might buy you an extra 500-1000' in hard deck clearance actually takes you away from landout options, rather than towards them. I could easily see uneven terrain that encourages pilots to "circle the drain" of SUAs into areas that are more hazardous rather than less.
>
> Lastly, mostly these ideas are intended to deal with relatively rare behavior and (if I hear people correctly) not even an attempt to stop that behavior, but simply the competitive impact of dice-rolling to win. If that's the case more selective and focused use of SUAs for specific risky behavior at specific locations that has an obvious competitive benefit might be a better way to go. Sergio's elevator at Lake Tahoe is pretty clearly one that I just won't do unless I'm high enough to avoid a lake landing. I've seen many flight traces of pilots who effectively committed to ditching if the elevator wasn't working - or their motor working (that one's a whole new thread).
>
> It's not really clear to me whether there is even clarity on the objective here. It could be: 1) Discourage pilots from ever getting out of glide range to an airport, 2) Discourage pilots from ever getting out of glide range of a laudable spot, 3) Discourage pilots from circling too low in an attempt to make a save for points (but only for cases where the pilot doesn't also care about avoiding a retrieve, in which case a penalty wouldn't matter), 4) Stop pilots from placing well in contests from doing 1, 2, or 3 - but which one? For the record, I think 1, 2 or 3 either aren't practical to implement or aren't ineffective incentives, and 4 depends on on having some sort of sense of which types of behavior are specific, intentional acts of risk taking for competitive advantage. I don't think making a low save falls into the category of an intentional act very often. If you're that low most often your day is shot. The Lake Tahoe example is a notable exception - maybe we should focus on that.
>
> It's a complex topic.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Andy, I hate it when you are the voice of reason :). My motivation is to prevent having to fly blatantly unsafely in order to feel competitive. I don't do it, and I'm not competitive. There are guys who are always going to be faster than me on skill alone, I accept that. There are other guys who are willing to take far more chances and are faster because of it. There is some overlap in the two groups. I've become pretty good at predicting which of the latter will eventually come to grief (a skill honed in the old hang gliding days when I lost perhaps 20 friends in just a few years).

Dan's point from before is that contests are usually won with consistency, but the way the scoring is done (as stated in Dave's article) if a guy gets a lucky and unsafe save on a day when many landout safely, that one event can change the finish order dramatically. Maybe changes to the scoring methods address the problem more simply. For example throwing out the best and worst score for each pilot, or using a low points scoring system as they do in sailing regattas. That tends to reward consistent performance above one lucky or unlucky day. There is always the possibility that one pilot will win with a series of unlikely and dangerous low saves, but that is far less probable than the order changing due to just one.

Sergio's elevator is a good example. I know several pilots who will attempt to utilize that when the rest of us will be in Carson. I also know one pilot who died there trying, and another who didn't make it out of the basin. I've seen a number exit through Spooner barely clearing the tops of the cars on the highway, a few more feet of sink and they'd have had a mid air with a truck. There are other ways to address that simpler than a hard deck, for example a a steering turn at the elevator at say 10,300 ft min. Perhaps at many contests, addressing a half dozen problematic areas in that way would be sufficient, any particular task might only involve one or two. Another at Truckee is returning through the Verdi gap from the north east. Again there are a few pilots I know that will come through there very low hoping for ridge lift, their backup plan is the lake at Boca. Not my cup of tea. A steering turn there would help, but it might still be practical (though foolhardy) to go through low, do a low save at Boca International, hit the steering turn at Verdi peak, and get home.

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 5:37:46 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> My motivation is to prevent having to fly blatantly unsafely in order to feel competitive.

Your ignorance is showing.

T8

[Steve Koerner]

9B can always be counted on to do a good job of thinking out the ramifications. It's a very good thing to finally have Andy on the rules committee.

I'm also glad to find something to agree with Jon Fitch about here. Going to the lake side of the Tahoe ridge is a concept that I abhor and will absolutely never do intentionally. It sounds like there are a bunch of us that feel that way. You local guys need to please come up with a steering turn concept like you are suggesting or some other way to take that particular option off the table before the next Region 11. I really don't want to be around when we're fishing a glider and its contents out of the lake. As you say, there are ways to address those sorts of particular site specific hazardous temptations within the present framework of rules.

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 6:44:40 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> 9B can always be counted on to do a good job of thinking out the ramifications. It's a very good thing to finally have Andy on the rules committee.
>
> I'm also glad to find something to agree with Jon Fitch about here. Going to the lake side of the Tahoe ridge is a concept that I abhor and will absolutely never do intentionally. It sounds like there are a bunch of us that feel that way. You local guys need to please come up with a steering turn concept like you are suggesting or some other way to take that particular option off the table before the next Region 11. I really don't want to be around when we're fishing a glider and its contents out of the lake. As you say, there are ways to address those sorts of particular site specific hazardous temptations within the present framework of rules.

I will bring it up with the CM and the CD, but given who the Elevator is named for, I'm not hopeful....:)

[jfitch]

On Saturday, January 27, 2018 at 6:44:40 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> 9B can always be counted on to do a good job of thinking out the ramifications. It's a very good thing to finally have Andy on the rules committee.
>
> I'm also glad to find something to agree with Jon Fitch about here. Going to the lake side of the Tahoe ridge is a concept that I abhor and will absolutely never do intentionally. It sounds like there are a bunch of us that feel that way. You local guys need to please come up with a steering turn concept like you are suggesting or some other way to take that particular option off the table before the next Region 11. I really don't want to be around when we're fishing a glider and its contents out of the lake. As you say, there are ways to address those sorts of particular site specific hazardous temptations within the present framework of rules.

I will bring it up with the CM and the CD, but given who the Elevator is named for, I'm not hopeful....:)

But, the use of the elevator is exactly the sort of situation from which my alleged ignorance stems.

[[email protected]]

(Not really a contest pilot here, so read with a grain of salt.)

I can see that the rules make the game and the current rules might encourage some folks to be unsafe. A hard deck data base with penalties seems a possible way to help this, but getting the details right for a hard deck database seems problematic if it is not to significantly limit strategy options.

Perhaps a simpler alternative would be a list of designated landing sites for a contest day.

Penalties would be accessed for not always keeping at least one under you according to some simple equation. (Perhaps looking at only L/D, minimum energy over terrain, and safety altitude.)

The goal is to not fix everything, but at least nudge strategic thinking in a safer direction.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

There you go again overcomplicating things ... Just because it's hard to define a SUA that rules out all the problematic high terrain out of Logan or Nehphi does not argue against a simple altitude floor at Hobbs, Uvalde, or all the east coast flatland sites. It does not argue against valley floor SUAs even at those complex sites. Again, we are not here to stop bad behavior, to control what pilots do, and so forth. We are just, where we can with a simple transparent means, removing the strong incentive for SOME dangerous flying. Not all. Not at all sites. Not at all parts of all sites.

There is a lot of speculation around here. I used to do the numbers for the SSA safety report. We had a seriously damaged glider or worse in about one of every two contests. Almost all the damage was off field landings gone wrong, and almost all the traces showed low altitude thermaling attempts before crash. The reports are still on the SSA webpage. (Before the cylinder, we used to have regular crashes at and around the finish too.) Smacking into terrain or midair collisions are present, but quite rare.

On the elevator. I was skeptical too. Then I tried it. It's pretty benign. You float down the eastern shore of Tahoe with an easy bail out to minden or carson most of the way. The ridge lift is very predictable. If there are whitecaps on tahoe, there will be ridge lift. The wind has to go somewhere. If there are not whitecaps on tahoe, it's not going to work. Smooth ridge lift gives you enough for a very comfortable glide back in to Truckee.

I see how it can be overdone. I have seen some traces of pilots shooting through the gap from the west, coming around the corner very low and squeezing lift out of the elevator from low altitude. That's a little hardy for me, in part that the back through the gap escape is gone. So far I have only tried it from about ridge top height up.

John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Thanks for clarifying. It sounded like a bail over the back to land because the ridge quit situation. Now I get it -- you guys had plenty of energy and took a somewhat straighter line to finish saving a few seconds. As pointed out before, a hard deck would not cause any trouble there.

John Cochrane

[Steve Koerner]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 7:45:05 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> (Not really a contest pilot here, so read with a grain of salt.)
>
> I can see that the rules make the game and the current rules might encourage some folks to be unsafe. A hard deck data base with penalties seems a possible way to help this, but getting the details right for a hard deck database seems problematic if it is not to significantly limit strategy options.
>
> Perhaps a simpler alternative would be a list of designated landing sites for a contest day.
>
> Penalties would be accessed for not always keeping at least one under you according to some simple equation. (Perhaps looking at only L/D, minimum energy over terrain, and safety altitude.)
>
> The goal is to not fix everything, but at least nudge strategic thinking in a safer direction.

The problem with that sort of approach is that there is no formula that can work. Not only do gliders differ in glide performance but the atmosphere differs a lot from time to time. Late in the day at a flat land site with no wind you might be able to count on 40:1 but in other circumstances 15:1 is all that is reasonably safe. Wind plays a big role in glide angles as well. What's more, the idea of creating a comprehensive database is impractical. For any given contest site that is about a one-man-year task. There is nobody to do that for us. If it has rained recently, it changes. If crops come up, it changes. Picking your very own out-landing place is pretty fundamental to the game.

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 7:38:49 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> There you go again overcomplicating things ... Just because it's hard to define a SUA that rules out all the problematic high terrain out of Logan or Nehphi does not argue against a simple altitude floor at Hobbs, Uvalde, or all the east coast flatland sites. It does not argue against valley floor SUAs even at those complex sites. Again, we are not here to stop bad behavior, to control what pilots do, and so forth. We are just, where we can with a simple transparent means, removing the strong incentive for SOME dangerous flying. Not all. Not at all sites. Not at all parts of all sites.
>
> There is a lot of speculation around here. I used to do the numbers for the SSA safety report. We had a seriously damaged glider or worse in about one of every two contests. Almost all the damage was off field landings gone wrong, and almost all the traces showed low altitude thermaling attempts before crash. The reports are still on the SSA webpage. (Before the cylinder, we used to have regular crashes at and around the finish too.) Smacking into terrain or midair collisions are present, but quite rare.
>
> On the elevator. I was skeptical too. Then I tried it. It's pretty benign.. You float down the eastern shore of Tahoe with an easy bail out to minden or carson most of the way. The ridge lift is very predictable. If there are whitecaps on tahoe, there will be ridge lift. The wind has to go somewhere. If there are not whitecaps on tahoe, it's not going to work. Smooth ridge lift gives you enough for a very comfortable glide back in to Truckee.
>
> I see how it can be overdone. I have seen some traces of pilots shooting through the gap from the west, coming around the corner very low and squeezing lift out of the elevator from low altitude. That's a little hardy for me, in part that the back through the gap escape is gone. So far I have only tried it from about ridge top height up.
>
> John Cochrane

John, above the ridge at Tahoe is one thing. Well below it is another entirely. The ridge starts at 9200 MSL Snow Peak and slopes down a little as you go north. From 9200' - even with the top - by the numbers you can glide through 7200' Brockway pass (10 nm away) at 40:1 and still be 400' above the power lines though it's going to take balls to do it. Or go 3 miles back through 7200' Spooner. At 9200' you are getting some ridge lift but you are not down on the Elevator, it is down at 8000'. I have watched people fly through Spooner at 8000', 1200' below the top, hook a right and ridge soar up.. So far we've only had one pilot killed trying it. Again by the numbers, from 8000' you can take one pass and still just clear the cars on Spooner on your way out. That is an "everything needs to go exactly right" plan. If you maintain the 9200' on the ridge going north, the ridge is getting slightly lower and you are getting closer to home, there is the option to bail out east to Carson if you can make it through the sink.

My personal limit is 10,300 or so leaving the Elevator area at Marlette Lake. At 50:1 that gives me about 300 ft over Martis peak with no help, if that isn't working I can continue towards Brockway which is 1000' lower (but a little further, too). Not an ultra conservative strategy but reasonably safe. That's where I got the 10,300' steering turn from. When I used to fly 40:1, that was a bit of a nail biter sometimes and I wanted to be higher. If we want to make it 9200 ft, then OK. It's the people entering Tahoe at 8000 that I don't want to compete with. The problem with 9200 is that, if the elevator is working, you can ridge soar it up to 9200, take the TP, and you're risk is made good. On that kind of day you aren't going to ridge soar it to 10,300. Or we could make the TP cylinder large enough, and ding any entry into it preventing a low entry.

Not everyone will agree with me (including the CD I think) but I'd have a 3 mile cylinder on Snow Peak with a 10,300 (or maybe 10,000) bottom. Points penalty down to 9200, below that scored as a landout at Carson City. I'm pretty confident that would get voted up at the pilot's meeting if they had the chance, though it would not be unanimous.

[[email protected]]

>
> The problem with that sort of approach is that there is no formula that can work. Not only do gliders differ in glide performance but the atmosphere differs a lot from time to time.

Thanks for the feedback and help in my understanding. To clarify what I was thinking...

I left WX out of the list of things to consider for the penalty on purpose. It did not seem fair to have penalties accessed based on wind values that would not be known until the scoring program looked at all the IGC's and figured them out. A fallback position might be to publish an assumed wind and use if for scoring.

Regardless of each glider's actual performance, I was thinking of a single conservative polar for the contest. My thought was that this would be a sort of handicap to nudge scoring more to the pilot's skill instead of the ship performance.

For the landing points, it seems to me that the first unintended consequence would be the risk of a bunch of gliders crowding a single field. Perhaps landing areas would make more sense.

It seems to me that a simplified assumption of expected WX, unified polar, and landing areas are implicit in the drawing of the SUA's?

[Steve Koerner]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 8:38:49 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> There you go again overcomplicating things ... Just because it's hard to define a SUA that rules out all the problematic high terrain out of Logan or Nehphi does not argue against a simple altitude floor at Hobbs, Uvalde, or all the east coast flatland sites. It does not argue against valley floor SUAs even at those complex sites. Again, we are not here to stop bad behavior, to control what pilots do, and so forth. We are just, where we can with a simple transparent means, removing the strong incentive for SOME dangerous flying. Not all. Not at all sites. Not at all parts of all sites.
>
> There is a lot of speculation around here. I used to do the numbers for the SSA safety report. We had a seriously damaged glider or worse in about one of every two contests. Almost all the damage was off field landings gone wrong, and almost all the traces showed low altitude thermaling attempts before crash. The reports are still on the SSA webpage. (Before the cylinder, we used to have regular crashes at and around the finish too.) Smacking into terrain or midair collisions are present, but quite rare.
>
> On the elevator. I was skeptical too. Then I tried it. It's pretty benign.. You float down the eastern shore of Tahoe with an easy bail out to minden or carson most of the way. The ridge lift is very predictable. If there are whitecaps on tahoe, there will be ridge lift. The wind has to go somewhere. If there are not whitecaps on tahoe, it's not going to work. Smooth ridge lift gives you enough for a very comfortable glide back in to Truckee.
>
> I see how it can be overdone. I have seen some traces of pilots shooting through the gap from the west, coming around the corner very low and squeezing lift out of the elevator from low altitude. That's a little hardy for me, in part that the back through the gap escape is gone. So far I have only tried it from about ridge top height up.
>
> John Cochrane

John - Thanks for the discussion on the "Elevator". I suspect that Sergio, at one point or another, did a good job of explaining that conservative approach and it didn't sink in with me. I'm certainly willing to try it the way you describe.

Regarding the hard deck idea, there have been two rationales expressed. One relates to safety -- protecting us from temptation of dangerously low saves. The other rationale relates to fairness -- not wanting a fellow competitor to get advantage by doing something that I would never do. Let's dissect that second rationale a bit.

I think the difference in AGL altitude at which BB or GW would safely quit turning and start landing and the lower altitude at which dangerous Joe Blow might risk his life and limb is not really very great. Wouldn't you say it's only around 150 feet? In most cases Joe Blow won't get any sort of advantage from doing so because he'll end up landing at that location regardless of his treachery. In the scheme of things, 150 feet isn't much. Certainly it is less than the typical variation in starting height between gliders on any given day.

The hard deck idea introduces an uncertain stopping point which is actually a lot greater than 150 ft. It's uncertain because, when low, we are normally gliding to or around landing alternates based on visual clue. Hard deck cannot be so easily judged or anticipated along the way. The height at which you are hit by hard deck would depend on where exactly the glide-to terrain elevation is in your step structure and it would depend on the present error of your pressure altimeter. There would be considerable variation in those factors between competitors who might be snagged by the hard deck and that is itself unfair.

In considering the fairness rationale, it would seem that this is a case that the cure is worse than the disease. If the fairness argument doesn't really work, the discussion needs to focus exclusively on whether or not there would be a realistic improvement in safety and whether or not added rules and complications are worth that improvement and whether or not the reduction in each pilot's liberty to find his own way to the finish line is worth it, as well.

[[email protected]]

I don't know whether I understand John's proposal better or if he's modifying it in the process of these online negotiations. :)

I re-read his "Contest Safety" presentation again, which I had downloaded earlier. I also visited his Web site and read his contest safety reports to the Rules Committee for 2011, 2012, and 2013 for the first time. If you haven't, you really should: https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/soaring/index.htm

My impression was that he has been calling for a series of SUA files to implement a hard deck over most of a contest envelope. I think that is a hopelessly complex technical solution that, like GPS and FLARM, might actually have some negative unintended consequences because it would focus our attention more inside the cockpit than it already is, would complicate decision making when low thereby ironically increasing stress at a bad time, and could encourage pilots to thermal at the edges of the SUA motivated by the points penalty if they didn't and lulled into a possible false sense of security so long as they were above the hard deck.

But after reading all four truly sobering documents (that reflect an impressive amount of work), I understand John's frustration. Most contest accidents are avoidable, and not simply by choosing not to fly contests. I still don't agree that wholesale SUAs to create a layer of hard decks over most of a contest arena is the right solution. But I would hate to see us ignore the potential for discouraging ill-advised behavior at specific, known, high-risk locations by implementing altitude minimums selectively. And that's how I read what he is proposing now.

That also seems to have been where he began (from his 2011 report): "We should allow and encourage contest organizers to set up minimum altitudes over wellâ€�known trouble spots, passes, or tempting unlandable terrain. These would be included in the SUA file, and falling below the minimum altitude triggers a substantial penalty.Â*Both crashes at Logan involved skimming over passes quite low (or trying to), and previous crashes at Mifflin have involved the same issue.Â*Â*Specific wellâ€�traveled and tricky passes are good places for a minimum altitude."

It's interesting that some have proposed a steering turn to take Sergio's Elevator off the table. If it's OK to discourage the use of that strategy via a steering turnpoint, why is it not OK to implement the same thing with a very narrowly defined SUA file? I haven't flown it but it sounds like the backside ridge south of New Castle: i.e., stay above the ridgetop in case you have to bail out and everything is fine. Dropping below ridgetop is another thing entirely.

Another candidate could be prohibiting thermaling below 500' over the home airport. We've all watched pilots struggle at 200' or 300' trying to avoid a relight but mostly causing anxiety and traffic congestion.

We just have to be cautious. For one reason, John raised a great question in the speaker notes of his 2002 PPT): "Interesting that so much of this [spate of accidents] is in the 90s. Is the great precision of GPS leading to smaller margins?"

Yes. I know so. That's not the same as saying that smaller margins have led to more accidents. But I suspect there's a correlation. Likewise FLARM--which I believe should be mandatory in contests--has had the inevitable effect of lulling some pilots into not paying as much attention to other aircraft, relying on the technology to take care of collision warnings.

So I worry about the potential to create new problems with a broad, rather than very selective, imposition of SUAs.

Another reason for caution is that this might unfairly impact the top and/or local pilots who can use their experience and knowledge to do things the rest of us can't (or think we can't, or can't do safely). Rewarding a pilot for taking an unwise risk seems wrong. But rewarding a pilot for superior skill is what it's all about.

Yes, this could be the first step down a slippery slope to flying contests in the equivalent of an aerobatic "box" with artificially imposed vertical and lateral limits that would drastically curtail the type of flying we enjoy today. Some (including yours truly) might argue we're already on that slope with the finish cylinder (oh, well....).

But reading about some of the incidents in John's reports is depressing. And thought provoking. And now I can understand his frustration better.

Just a thought to keep the discussion going!

Chip Bearden

[Kevin Christner]

I see a number of issues here:

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

I really enjoy your frequent op-eds in the WSJ and elsewhere - especially when you discuss the fact that you can't regulate against stupidity. Perhaps thats the best path to take with soaring as well... ;)

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:01:01 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.
>
> The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.
>
> Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.
>
> These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.
>
> Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.
>
> Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.
>
> Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.
>
> John Cochrane

[jfitch]

The issues are quite site dependent. Out in the west, there aren't many instances of circling at 300 ft AGL that I have seen, the issue is more typically getting down to 3000 ft AGL where there are only crashing sites within glide range. Usually the perpetrator finds lift and makes it out, and often this is a competitive advantage. Occasionally they don't find lift, land or crash at an inaccessible location.

As I understand it back east, the whole contest is run at less than 3000 AGL and often far less. In addition, the issues out west are less having to cross an SUA to get to the other side, and more typically having to stop and take a 2 knot thermal rather than pushing on, low, hoping for a 10 knot thermal. Even though mountainous, I would not envision a bunch of inverted cake steps. A simple readout of vertical clearance to the SUA you are over is sufficient and behaves exactly as your altimeter, requiring no more attention. I'm getting close to the SUA ('ground') and I'd better stop for the next thermal. You really only need to know the top of the SUA, once, for that valley - it doesn't change. You look once, see that the floor is 8000 ft, and take thermals when you get down to 8500 or so. There isn't any need to stare at instruments. The edges are rarely a concern, because they typically end at the rising terrain surrounding it, you can't drop over the edge without penetrating rock.

I'm not sure if that is really John's proposal, but that's how I had envisioned it.

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 1:53:30 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> The issues are quite site dependent.

Exactly. Like Chip, I went back and looked at the BB Contest Safety Reports. If you leave aside mountain and ridge sites (technical sites), it's hard to find any crashes which would have been prevented by some sort of hard-deck. Two of the examples (Fairfield and Perry) happened near the home airport, ostensibly due to pilots trying to squeak home. We already have a rule for that (minimum arrival height). The Diana crash at Fairfield should have been a successful outlanding since the pilot did some things right (i.e. committed to a landout) but inexplicably messed up by switching fields late.

The Pegasus crash at Elmira wasn't a guy trying to extract maximum points on the day. As the report makes clear, he had already given up racing and was just trying to avoid landing out. He botched what should have been a simple field landing. Similarly, the Mifflin crash in the Stone Valley looks to have resulted from a failed ridge run, perhaps due to inexperience with ridge flying.

Now, let's consider unintended consequences in a flatlands site. Here's a very realistic scenario. Windy day. 10 mile marginal stretch with good fields on the other side (maybe even an airport). Pilot leaves with a cushion but gets slammed. 2 miles from the safer terrain and cruising at 80kts he's down to 300 feet above the "hard deck" (say 1000 feet). He's got a reasonable/safe glide to the fields, but points are on the line. He will almost certainly drop down under 1000 feet before he gets to salvation. Then, he hits a broken half knot. At least he's not going down. What does he do? The safe thing is to bounce it and proceed knowing he's almost certainly going to "virtually" land out. But points are on the line. So he stops and tries to make the half knot rotor/thermal work, only to drift back another mile while bleeding off the speed he had in the tank. After flailing around gaining on a half turn and losing on the other half, he loses the half knot entirely, but now he's got a much more marginal glide to the safe fields. In fact, he's not sure he can make it. Well that sucks.

Regarding mountain and ridge sites, can you really anticipate all of the permutations in conditions to make a one-size-fits-all hard deck? Leave aside the high ground; even the valleys have significant risks with one set of conditions and can be completely benign in others.

I don't believe that we can afford to do nothing, but I don't agree this is the solution. Couple of thoughts:

- Reading the Nadler report about the Sugarbush debacle vs. Cindy B's observations, it's clear that pilot qualifications/experience ought to be studied more carefully. CDs and CMs ought to be comfortable challenging pilots who appear to be in over their heads.

- Encourage pilot classification (e.g. Gold vs. Silver) classification rather than always grouping by glider classification at highly technical sites.. Then, ensure CDs call tasks accordingly, inlcluding being willing to cancel days (such as the rain/ridge/wave day in the Sugarbush report) for the less-experience classification.

- Encourage more sites to improve the task area briefings with more focus on never-go areas or minimum safe altitudes under specific conditions.

P3

[Jim White[_3_]]

This thread is very thought provoking. I wish to declare a principal: I am
against excessive rule making.

I am of the opinion that it is down to the director to look for and
intervene when he / she sees unsafe behaviour and then have the authority,
and balls, to sanction or disqualify the pilots that take disproportionate
risk.

Jim

[Per Carlin]

Are we not trying to overcomplicate things again with this sua-file?

With this file do we remove the responsibility to fly safe from the pilot to the CD. It is the pilot who decides what is safe and what is not, anykind of rules should not take over this responibility. But it should remove the gain of stupidity. And what will happens if the CD makes the sua-file wrong. Who to blame, the pilot or the CD?

An easier solution would be to stop counting distance points from 300m(~100feet) AGL of your outlanding. If you landout do you get max distance of the logg where you are at least 300m above the landing. The hard deck can be defined i local procedures according to actuall terrain as in Big forrest areas should the level be increase compared to the flatland with large agricultures.


This would not take out the thrill of an low save, but it will stop you from making studid glides on low level to gain thoose valuble extra points as each km gives you. Thoose glides are a real problem, current rules promotes stupidity to glide as far as possible when the outlanding is unaviodable. Each extra km can be 4 points, 10km can be 40points and that can be the difference to be on the podium or not at a WGC. So how are you gonna spend your last 300m, make a pattern and loose the medal or continue and win the game?

With rules that stops giving you distance points does not remove the pilots resposibility but it take away the gain on doing something stupid.

/Per Carlin

[Steve Koerner]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 2:15:07 PM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
> This thread is very thought provoking. I wish to declare a principal: I am
> against excessive rule making.
>
> I am of the opinion that it is down to the director to look for and
> intervene when he / she sees unsafe behaviour and then have the authority,
> and balls, to sanction or disqualify the pilots that take disproportionate
> risk.
>
> Jim

Precisely. I have a proposal that I think addresses BB's issue without any new rules. Here's how...

We already have the rules that we need:

10.9.1.4 Pilots must pay particular attention to safety during the process of finishing, landing, and rolling to a stop. A pilot whose
finish, pattern, landing, or rollout is deemed unsafe by the CD is subject to a penalty for unsafe operation (¶ 12.2.5.1).

12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (¶ 10.9.1.4, ¶ 10.9.3.4): maximum penalty = disqualification.

In the rules guide or by declaration of the contest CD, it shall be overtly recognized that thermalling in the flats (wherever there isn't a lower escape) at or below 300 feet is defined to be unsafe.

It will be recognized that an assessment of low thermalling can be made if and only if the glider lands within 30 minutes of the time of the infraction such that the flight recorder will have a presumed to be valid pressure reference. The proposed penalty may be 200 points for a first infraction, for example; and perhaps zero for the day on a second infraction.

In practice, when the scorer has time to address the matter, he will examine the flight logs of pilots who have landed out to determine whether any low thermalling had occured within the 30 minutes prior interval. If he finds such, he brings the data to the attention of the CD. The CD makes a penalty assessment taking into consideration the data presented and any other relevant factors.

This would create a strong motivation in the cockpit to not take a chance of losing a lot of points on a low save attempt that probably won't work anyway. We all know that recovery attempts at a very low altitude are quite unlikely to succeed. The cockpit calculus changes in exactly the way that BB (and most all us) desires to reduce the occurence of spin-in accidents.

With this, we avoid a lot of new rules and complication. Our flying liberty is not grossly impacted. With a 300 foot standard, most pilots would be motivated to break off at around 500 or 600 feet because they would not be able to precisely judge where the 300 foot AGL point would be and are motivated to not take a chance on the points loss.

All of my numbers here are just for example. My numbers might be refined by more careful consideration or even adjusted at the discretion of the CD for different sites.

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-8, Per Carlin wrote:
> Are we not trying to overcomplicate things again with this sua-file?
>
> With this file do we remove the responsibility to fly safe from the pilot to the CD. It is the pilot who decides what is safe and what is not, anykind of rules should not take over this responibility. But it should remove the gain of stupidity. And what will happens if the CD makes the sua-file wrong. Who to blame, the pilot or the CD?
>
> An easier solution would be to stop counting distance points from 300m(~100feet) AGL of your outlanding. If you landout do you get max distance of the logg where you are at least 300m above the landing. The hard deck can be defined i local procedures according to actuall terrain as in Big forrest areas should the level be increase compared to the flatland with large agricultures.
>
>
> This would not take out the thrill of an low save, but it will stop you from making studid glides on low level to gain thoose valuble extra points as each km gives you. Thoose glides are a real problem, current rules promotes stupidity to glide as far as possible when the outlanding is unaviodable.. Each extra km can be 4 points, 10km can be 40points and that can be the difference to be on the podium or not at a WGC. So how are you gonna spend your last 300m, make a pattern and loose the medal or continue and win the game?
>
> With rules that stops giving you distance points does not remove the pilots resposibility but it take away the gain on doing something stupid.
>
> /Per Carlin

Isn't that just a hard deck set at 300m AGL? Doesn't it have all the same critics as the SUA file version? You still can't see it, it still eliminates the 200' ridge crossings. You are still going to circle in P3's half knotter if you see yourself falling below it.

We have at least on instance of the SUA version, the Reno Class C. It's an irregular (but well known) shape, and large. It is overflown frequently in contests, and has been that way for about 20 years. There've been people DSQ'd for dropping into it. I've not heard any complaints or problems with it..

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 2:30:46 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 2:15:07 PM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
> > This thread is very thought provoking. I wish to declare a principal: I am
> > against excessive rule making.
> >
> > I am of the opinion that it is down to the director to look for and
> > intervene when he / she sees unsafe behaviour and then have the authority,
> > and balls, to sanction or disqualify the pilots that take disproportionate
> > risk.
> >
> > Jim
>
> Precisely. I have a proposal that I think addresses BB's issue without any new rules. Here's how...
>
> We already have the rules that we need:
>
> 10.9.1.4 Pilots must pay particular attention to safety during the process of finishing, landing, and rolling to a stop. A pilot whose
> finish, pattern, landing, or rollout is deemed unsafe by the CD is subject to a penalty for unsafe operation (¶ 12.2.5.1).
>
> 12.2.5.1 Unsafe operation (including all phases of flight and ground operation) (¶ 10.9.1.4, ¶ 10.9.3.4): maximum penalty = disqualification.
>
> In the rules guide or by declaration of the contest CD, it shall be overtly recognized that thermalling in the flats (wherever there isn't a lower escape) at or below 300 feet is defined to be unsafe.
>
> It will be recognized that an assessment of low thermalling can be made if and only if the glider lands within 30 minutes of the time of the infraction such that the flight recorder will have a presumed to be valid pressure reference. The proposed penalty may be 200 points for a first infraction, for example; and perhaps zero for the day on a second infraction.
>
> In practice, when the scorer has time to address the matter, he will examine the flight logs of pilots who have landed out to determine whether any low thermalling had occured within the 30 minutes prior interval. If he finds such, he brings the data to the attention of the CD. The CD makes a penalty assessment taking into consideration the data presented and any other relevant factors.
>
> This would create a strong motivation in the cockpit to not take a chance of losing a lot of points on a low save attempt that probably won't work anyway. We all know that recovery attempts at a very low altitude are quite unlikely to succeed. The cockpit calculus changes in exactly the way that BB (and most all us) desires to reduce the occurence of spin-in accidents..
>
> With this, we avoid a lot of new rules and complication. Our flying liberty is not grossly impacted. With a 300 foot standard, most pilots would be motivated to break off at around 500 or 600 feet because they would not be able to precisely judge where the 300 foot AGL point would be and are motivated to not take a chance on the points loss.
>
> All of my numbers here are just for example. My numbers might be refined by more careful consideration or even adjusted at the discretion of the CD for different sites.

Steve, I don't think that addresses John's issue, and certainly not mine. Once a guy has landed out, he's taken a big points hit. This would reward even lower circling, hoping that you would get away and not be subject to scrutiny and a penalty. If you make the save at 200', you've saved the day and your contest position and are not subject to your proposed penalty. The more prudent pilot that stopped at 800' and landed, did neither and is punished for it.

[[email protected]]

If the CD already has authority here, then could this be a process to use it?

It counts as landing to fly anywhere at less than X feet AGL without having enough speed to pull up to X feet and be above Y airspeed. (X = 500 feet, Y=60Knots, with a simple chart for the pullup?) The goal being to limit low thermaling and low and slow passes across ridges but still allow flight near terrain.

When you publish the IGC, you also have to publish your landing plan for the whole flight. (For each part of the flight, the area you planned to land and how you were going to get there with energy you had (as opposed to hoped to get) when you committed to that option.) Any pilot can ask for clarification on this and the CD can then access penalties.

In addition, experiment with an occasional safety SUA for specific issues.

[Steve Koerner]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 3:33:38 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
> On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-8, Per Carlin wrote:
> > Are we not trying to overcomplicate things again with this sua-file?
> >
> > With this file do we remove the responsibility to fly safe from the pilot to the CD. It is the pilot who decides what is safe and what is not, anykind of rules should not take over this responibility. But it should remove the gain of stupidity. And what will happens if the CD makes the sua-file wrong. Who to blame, the pilot or the CD?
> >
> > An easier solution would be to stop counting distance points from 300m(~100feet) AGL of your outlanding. If you landout do you get max distance of the logg where you are at least 300m above the landing. The hard deck can be defined i local procedures according to actuall terrain as in Big forrest areas should the level be increase compared to the flatland with large agricultures.
> >
> >
> > This would not take out the thrill of an low save, but it will stop you from making studid glides on low level to gain thoose valuble extra points as each km gives you. Thoose glides are a real problem, current rules promotes stupidity to glide as far as possible when the outlanding is unaviodable. Each extra km can be 4 points, 10km can be 40points and that can be the difference to be on the podium or not at a WGC. So how are you gonna spend your last 300m, make a pattern and loose the medal or continue and win the game?
> >
> > With rules that stops giving you distance points does not remove the pilots resposibility but it take away the gain on doing something stupid.
> >
> > /Per Carlin
>
> Isn't that just a hard deck set at 300m AGL? Doesn't it have all the same critics as the SUA file version? You still can't see it, it still eliminates the 200' ridge crossings. You are still going to circle in P3's half knotter if you see yourself falling below it.
>
> We have at least on instance of the SUA version, the Reno Class C. It's an irregular (but well known) shape, and large. It is overflown frequently in contests, and has been that way for about 20 years. There've been people DSQ'd for dropping into it. I've not heard any complaints or problems with it.

It's significantly different Jon. No new rules have to be created. No new SUA files have to be created.

Because it is precisely ground referenced, it can be much lower (my suggestion 300 ft vs John's hard deck suggestion of 500 to 1000 ft). That makes for essentially no impact on all of the scenarios. For any sensible pilot a ground referred 300 ft rule does not impede or confuse any flying behavior.. It is assuredly the case that you and I would have made the chose to land before that point -- not so with an altitude based and variable 500 to 1000 ft rule.

I agree that it is not accurately knowable in the cockpit. But with a 300 ft ground referenced rule, that makes essentially no difference. Nobody will need to game a 300 ft rule.

[[email protected]]

The concept of applying a hard deck for soaring competition is pure lunacy. Stop trying to pretend competition can be "ruled" free of risk. Or otherwise, lets just give every entrant "first place" like they do in kid's sports..

The undeniable fact of winning races (in any sport) is pushing one's skills and equipment to the limit of their abilities while enjoying a pinch or two of good fortune. By surpassing personal limits, one then enters the "stupid zone" where anything can happen. Is a hard deck limit not an attempt to fix stupid?

Good luck with that.

[Steve Koerner]

> Steve, I don't think that addresses John's issue, and certainly not mine. Once a guy has landed out, he's taken a big points hit. This would reward even lower circling, hoping that you would get away and not be subject to scrutiny and a penalty. If you make the save at 200', you've saved the day and your contest position and are not subject to your proposed penalty. The more prudent pilot that stopped at 800' and landed, did neither and is punished for it.

Here's how the calculus will work in the cockpit: If I circle below 300 ft, I will have a 10% chance of getting away and gaining 400 points; at the same time, I will have a 90% chance of losing 200 points. I'm pretty sure that 200 points is plenty enough to make that an easy choice -- that would make for a net expectation of -140 points. Clearly, it could be an even easier choice if the penalty were made larger. I don't think it needs to be larger.

And, normally a landout costs less than 400 points compared to a finisher -- that number, of course, is variable but representative. My 10% number is variable too, but I think it would also be representative of what anyone might reasonably be expecting from a try at 300 ft. Right?

[jfitch]

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 4:39:48 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > Steve, I don't think that addresses John's issue, and certainly not mine. Once a guy has landed out, he's taken a big points hit. This would reward even lower circling, hoping that you would get away and not be subject to scrutiny and a penalty. If you make the save at 200', you've saved the day and your contest position and are not subject to your proposed penalty. The more prudent pilot that stopped at 800' and landed, did neither and is punished for it.
>
> Here's how the calculus will work in the cockpit: If I circle below 300 ft, I will have a 10% chance of getting away and gaining 400 points; at the same time, I will have a 90% chance of losing 200 points. I'm pretty sure that 200 points is plenty enough to make that an easy choice -- that would make for a net expectation of -140 points. Clearly, it could be an even easier choice if the penalty were made larger. I don't think it needs to be larger.
>
> And, normally a landout costs less than 400 points compared to a finisher -- that number, of course, is variable but representative. My 10% number is variable too, but I think it would also be representative of what anyone might reasonably be expecting from a try at 300 ft. Right?

OK, I'm feeling it a little more, with respect to safety aspects of circling that low. I'm still not feeling it with respect to any reduction of reward/risk in situations where 300 ft is already 3000 ft too low. In Per Carlin's proposal, it still seems as complicated as SUAs, especially if you are going to raise and lower the limit based on area - this is just like an SUA, though locally ground referenced rather than pressure referenced.

But those arguments have clarified in my mind that there are two or perhaps several distinct issues. One is to remove the reward for circling below pattern altitude near a landing site - this seems to apply mostly to the east where heights are low and landing sites more plentiful. It addresses both the safety and competitive advantage aspects of that behavior. Another is overflying unlandable areas too low. This may not involve circling at all, and might be quite high considered in isolation. This is more likely the situation in the west, where altitudes are high but landing areas are far between.

I consider both circling at 300 ft, and flying deep into unlandable territory to low to escape - even if perhaps high on the altimeter - to be unacceptable risks. If the expected lift does not materialize, the only difference in outcome is the end point of the latter is delayed a few minutes. But in considering the latter I seem to be in the minority. I gather from this that most competition pilots consider overflying unlandable territory too low to escape to be an acceptable risk of competition.

[Steve Koerner]

Jon, I doubt anyone would disagree with the proposition that gliding too low over unlandable terrain is a bigger issue than guys trying for an excessively low save. The thing is that there is nothing practical to be done about excessively bold gliding (see my above post at 8:41 AM). Being excessively bold does come in every shade of grey and is not amenable to legislation.. Guys that are so afflicted, do eventually break a glider and get recalibrated. In the meantime, picking our own landout option is about the most elemental thing we do. The fact is, that, every vehicular sport has its dangerous edges.

For the 300 ft problem, the suggestion here is that we do have a way we can address that particular hazard without needing to go nuclear with new rules and constraints.

[[email protected]]

Hey look someone already solved this problem, and whole bunch of other ones. Welcome to the future of glider racing, no low thermaling, no breaking gliders in crash fields, no retrieve crew.
http://worldairgames.aero/airsports/gliding

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

Based on that statement, you should probably avoid landing, and always stay
above 1000ft agl or simply not take off!

At 19:42 26 January 2018, Charlie M. UH & 002 owner/pilot wrote:
>As ex CFIG, how low do you want to recover from a stall/spin?
>For me higher the better......
>

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

Please qualify? Has it really, or is it the late field selection associated
with the below statement that has caused the crashes?

Low i.e. 500ft agl above a good pre-selected field, by an experienced pilot
in an aircraft they are familiar with is not unreasonable.

500ft having not considered the options and planned a field landing would
not be safe.

At 22:00 26 January 2018, John Cochrane wrote:


The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose
is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led
to
many crashes.
>
>John Cochrane
>

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

I would argue that putting a hard deck rule in place has the ability to
create a safety issue rather than mitigate it.

What happens when the competitor drops below the proposed hard deck?

Must they simply land?

Do they give up trying, and then land out trying to get home, possibly
unfocussed and a bit dejected?

You would then be putting pilots in a situation where they are forced into
landing in an unknown environment and by doing so increasing the risk.

Statistics are statistics and can be manipulated to give the desired
outcome.

The issue here is field section, or lack thereof.

There are many factors that influence what is a safe height to climb away:

1) Experience
2) Hours on type
3) Terrain
4) Having a chosen / planned land out option
5) Aircraft type
6) Weather - reliable day Vs unreliable day

Competition gliding is in decline, keep adding rules which removes the
pilot judgment, the decline will be more rapid.

Just my humble opinion.

1000 + hours
Flown 15+ contests
Past contest director
150 hours in the mountains.

[[email protected]]

I'm opposing any hard-deck rule. I have been competing with mixed results in gliders since 1996 and I started a CD "career" 4 years ago.
Under a hard deck rule, a pilot who finds himself low will struggle to judge whether he's going to reach a promising hot spot while still on a valid score. He may have to divert to a less than ideal and maybe more uncertain thermal source (lots to complain after the flight).

If in any case he will break through the hard deck, he'll be delusional. That won't stop him from trying to avoid the inconvenience of the retrieve. If he manages to climb out, more he will have reasons to complain against the rule.

On the other hand, I'm totally in favour of the remote finish, high finish gate or finish ring. There are negative factors as well (less lookout and more instrument focus, slow and erratic flying close to the finush), but the balance is in my opinion largely in favour of the high finish line.

Aldo Cernezzi

[[email protected]]

A few years back, I was turning final for a land-out at Swee****er strip (45 miles south of Minden). At 300 feet I hit a large bump and thought about trying one turn in it to see if I could climb, but declined because my hard deck was 500 feet. I landed, called in, then I watched another sailplane hit the same bump, but he turned in it, climbed away and made it home. Should he be penalized? Maybe he had more experience than I had. Maybe he knew that when a west wind blew, it went around mount Patterson and then met again on the east side.......right where my big bump was found. We can't legislate judgement or experience!
JJ..............PS, I'm old enough to remember when the national rules were only 2 pages!

[Clay[_5_]]

It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals were due to a <500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or percentage then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way the game is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero ....

[MNLou]

I believe the intent of a hard deck would, indeed, be to change the way the game is played.

Lou

[Michael Opitz]

At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
>It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals
were
>d=
>ue to a <500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or
>percent=
>age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way
the
>ga=
>me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20
>

Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of at
least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this happened.
I'm sure there are many more...

RO

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 7:10:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
> A few years back, I was turning final for a land-out at Swee****er strip (45 miles south of Minden). At 300 feet I hit a large bump and thought about trying one turn in it to see if I could climb, but declined because my hard deck was 500 feet. I landed, called in, then I watched another sailplane hit the same bump, but he turned in it, climbed away and made it home. Should he be penalized? Maybe he had more experience than I had. Maybe he knew that when a west wind blew, it went around mount Patterson and then met again on the east side.......right where my big bump was found. We can't legislate judgement or experience!
> JJ..............PS, I'm old enough to remember when the national rules were only 2 pages!

I very much agree with you, JJ. A lot of what is magical about soaring and glider racing is the element of self-determination, operating independent of authorities and deciding your own fate. Towards that, I want to give up no airspace and I do not want any more cumbersome rules and restrictions. I want the liberty to make all of my own choices as I deem best for me. It's for those reasons that I opposed the original incarnation of hard deck.

Yet it is truly painfully for all of us that we are suffering too many serious accidents. It would seem that there is an opportunity to significantly reduce one of the several categories of accidents and give up almost nothing in terms of flying liberty. My proposition is that giving up only the altitude below 300 ft in the flats really is giving up almost nothing. If you might have glossed through my alternative hard deck proposal of yesterday afternoon, take a look at that as a separate consideration please. I know that it can only help the overall accident problem a wee bit -- perhaps it's just one guy every ten years that might be saved from his own temptation. Maybe he's worth saving if we can do it with no new rules and no new complications to how we fly contests?

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Thanks JJ for sharing. I have had the same thing happen to me, nice to know I am not alone. I had a firm hard deck back then (should probably readdress this) and I was fine with my decision to land as it was made a year before after a friend hit a bump tried a few circles and then couldn't make his intended landing spot. After my fried broke his bird, I made my hard deck and several time over the years I have come up against the hard deck while hitting a bump, NEVER have I made that turn, as I had decided long before..

Having said the above, I did come to an outlanding last summer very low. Got to a "dry lake" with obstacles encroaching from both sides a small stream running through the middle. I arrived at the lake at 300 ft AGL and felt I needed to fly the length of the landing area to pick my path turn 180 degrees fly back, another 180 degree turn and land. The final turn was at 100 feet AGL as per my flight logger. A hard deck would not have changed anything. I made a mistake in pushing on 15 miles south of where I landed. I should have stayed and got the altitude or abandoned the task. I did no low attitude thermaling (other than scrapping rocks trying to break a thermal lose) while still at altitude over valley floor, yet still I was not in the best situation.

Mind you I had a sustainer with a starter and did not think of using it as I was too low when I got to dry lake. I am with Steve Koerner on this matter. Whether the goal is safety or leveling the competition field a fool like me will still screw up 15, 30minutes before the deck and end up where we tried to prevent by more rules and airspace restriction.

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 6:10:52 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> A few years back, I was turning final for a land-out at Swee****er strip (45 miles south of Minden). At 300 feet I hit a large bump and thought about trying one turn in it to see if I could climb, but declined because my hard deck was 500 feet. I landed, called in, then I watched another sailplane hit the same bump, but he turned in it, climbed away and made it home. Should he be penalized? Maybe he had more experience than I had. Maybe he knew that when a west wind blew, it went around mount Patterson and then met again on the east side.......right where my big bump was found. We can't legislate judgement or experience!
> JJ..............PS, I'm old enough to remember when the national rules were only 2 pages!

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-5, Michael Opitz wrote:
> At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
> >It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals
> were
> >d=
> >ue to a <500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or
> >percent=
> >age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way
> the
> >ga=
> >me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20
> >
>
> Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of at
> least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this happened.
> I'm sure there are many more...
>
> RO

I'd very much like to see the flight logs. These logs ought to be public domain, so let's shine some light on the subject.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

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

Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.

Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next..

Change of pace........

Another contest site example.......

Dansville, NY, returning from the SE, look up Avoca as an airport in the valley heading towards Dansville.
Local conventional wisdom is, "if you're coming up the valley and clear the valley by a few hundred feet, you have the airport made".
The valley drops off enough so a 35:1 or better glider can follow the slope, clear the town, make the airport.
In the "olden days", this was fine.
With newer current minimum finish heights, you need a bit more over the valley crest to not bust minimums at the finish line.

Granted, if there is much of any NW wind, the right side of the dropoff may put you on the backside of the ridge on the way to town.
Trust me, it's not fun in that case.

There is the front lawn of a hospital just before town, totally landable if you are sorta sharp, been there twice. Pass the lawn, it gets real ugly until over the airport fence, this why I landed on the lawn twice maybe 3/4 mile from the airport.

The new minimum numbers would likely land quite a few doing that route that can be safe, but low.

Another return is from the south/SSW from Hornel, you can fall off a higher valley floor, run through small gorges with fields all over on the way to the airport. Great landing sites (better than going over the town......) but still likely to bust suggested minimums.

I am not aware of any broken gliders in either case over the years.
I am not for or against the proposed suggested rules change.
Just pointing out some "flatlander" situations that may be impacted by a "minimum valley clearance height".

Not trying to argue or defend myself, just adding specific info to the discussion.

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.
>
> Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next.

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:51:00 AM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
> > Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.
> >
> > Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next.
> >
> > Change of pace........
> >
> > Another contest site example.......
> >
> > Dansville, NY, returning from the SE, look up Avoca as an airport in the valley heading towards Dansville.
> > Local conventional wisdom is, "if you're coming up the valley and clear the valley by a few hundred feet, you have the airport made".
> > The valley drops off enough so a 35:1 or better glider can follow the slope, clear the town, make the airport.
> > In the "olden days", this was fine.
> > With newer current minimum finish heights, you need a bit more over the valley crest to not bust minimums at the finish line.
> >
> > Granted, if there is much of any NW wind, the right side of the dropoff may put you on the backside of the ridge on the way to town.
> > Trust me, it's not fun in that case.
> >
> > There is the front lawn of a hospital just before town, totally landable if you are sorta sharp, been there twice. Pass the lawn, it gets real ugly until over the airport fence, this why I landed on the lawn twice maybe 3/4 mile from the airport.
> >
> > The new minimum numbers would likely land quite a few doing that route that can be safe, but low.
> >
> > Another return is from the south/SSW from Hornel, you can fall off a higher valley floor, run through small gorges with fields all over on the way to the airport. Great landing sites (better than going over the town......) but still likely to bust suggested minimums.
> >
> > I am not aware of any broken gliders in either case over the years.
> > I am not for or against the proposed suggested rules change.
> > Just pointing out some "flatlander" situations that may be impacted by a "minimum valley clearance height".
> >
> > Not trying to argue or defend myself, just adding specific info to the discussion.
>
> Charlie, There are two points I would make: By my proposal, if there is an out to lower ground (300 ft lower), then that is not a violation. Second, by my proposal, the CD always has discretion. To the extent that this is a standard safe route, as you describe it, your CD would not penalize you for unsafe flying.

I should also add, if this is a ridge flying scenario, you probably aren't stopping to turn. So by my protocol, there is not a problem flying through that area or even landing at the hospital unless you were doing a thermalling turn below 300 ft.

[ND]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:01:01 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.
>
> The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.
>
> Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.
>
> These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.
>
> Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.
>
> Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.
>
> Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.
>
> John Cochrane


why do i get that same creepy big brother feeling every time john proposes something. i feel like the hard deck would do exactly what government does sometimes. trying to protect everyone all the time by imposing increasingly restricting laws is not the answer.

i attempted a circle at 600 feet over luscombe acres (TSA) once . when the lift just wasnt solid enough i used good sense, hung it up and landed safely. we don't need a hard deck if everyone would stick to reasonable personal minimums.

you can't fix stupid though. have you considered this: some people might even continue to try and thermal after getting landed out by the hard deck to keep their expensive craft out of a field. i know under the right circumstances i would if i thought i could get away safely and avoid a retrieve.

so what are we trying to solve here? pressure to do stupid stuff by contest points to be had? people don't only thermal low because they're pressured by contest points. they also don't want to have to deal with a retrieve, and they wanna keep their shiny toy out of a potentially damaging field. it's why people buy sustainers. you cant save everyone. this is aviation, people need to rely on their own skill and sound decision making in the moment to stay safe, wherever and however they are able. for mountain and ridge site the hard deck is a nightmare and doesn't cover all risks. there's no way to design it that covers all phases of flight within proximity of terrain without fundamentally ruining the way that sort of flying is done. see andy blackburn's comments about ridges less than 500 feet high. you make whole ridges unflyable. look at may 23rd 2006 sports class nationals at mifflin. Liz S and i flew the ridge just north of shamokin, and it's top is 400 feet about the valley floor in many spots.

i used to love the finish line. as a kid i'd watch the gliders pass 30 feet overhead dumping water on me and the uvalde ramp. the temporary relief from the heat, and the excitement of watching such a magnificent craft skate just overhead was pure magic. I swear to god if you taint mifflin....

And if you can't fix people cirlcing within proximity of a mountain face, why endeavor to eliminate circle down near the valley floor. i guarantee more accidents happen high up along mountain faces where the proposed hard deck isn't in effect.

i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to stop.

ND

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:36:35 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002
> Another contest site example.......

Hey Charlie: The finish cylinder minimum for 2018 is now 800 over the airport / 1 mi. It's been at least 500 / 1 mi for a decade. What was exciting for you was too exciting for organizers (heavily influenced by others that weren't able to offset bad judgement with good luck).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:14:55 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:

> i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to stop.
>
> ND

Andy,

John (and Jon) have been quite explicit: They don't give a f@#& about your safety or your behavior. They care that you cannot get any speed points for doing something they don't approve of. Big difference.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Golly, I thought at the 2017 18 meter nationals, they had a 50 ft finish line?

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:36:35 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002
> > Another contest site example.......
>
> Hey Charlie: The finish cylinder minimum for 2018 is now 800 over the airport / 1 mi. It's been at least 500 / 1 mi for a decade. What was exciting for you was too exciting for organizers (heavily influenced by others that weren't able to offset bad judgement with good luck).
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> Golly, I thought at the 2017 18 meter nationals, they had a 50 ft finish line?

Any contest that includes a sports class has to use a finish ring with the designated minimum. The finish line still puts in an occasional guest appearance at Nats.

T8

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

Tanks for the reply.

As stated, not trying to justify, just stating a possible case where a blanket hard deck could do unintentional landouts.

[[email protected]]

A few safety notes from SK point of view:

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

[BobW]

>> Thanks, it was time to start a proper threa[d]. Let me put out a concrete
>> proposal so we know what we're talking about.
>>
>> The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose
>> is to remove the points incentive for very low thermalling, which has led
>> to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives
>> for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over
>> unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.

<proposal snipped...>

>> Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We
>> just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We
>> may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a
>> competitive necessity and temptation.

> why do i get that same creepy big brother feeling every time john proposes
> something. i feel like the hard deck would do exactly what government does
> sometimes. trying to protect everyone all the time by imposing increasingly
> restricting laws is not the answer.

<personal in-cockpit contest anecdote snipped...>

> you can't fix stupid though. have you considered this: some people might
> even continue to try and thermal after getting landed out by the hard deck
> to keep their expensive craft out of a field. i know under the right
> circumstances i would if i thought i could get away safely and avoid a
> retrieve.
>
> so what are we trying to solve here? pressure to do stupid stuff by contest
> points to be had? people don't only thermal low because they're pressured
> by contest points. they also don't want to have to deal with a retrieve,
> and they wanna keep their shiny toy out of a potentially damaging field.
> it's why people buy sustainers. you cant save everyone. this is aviation,
> people need to rely on their own skill and sound decision making in the
> moment to stay safe, wherever and however they are able. for mountain and
> ridge site the hard deck is a nightmare and doesn't cover all risks.
> there's no way to design it that covers all phases of flight within
> proximity of terrain without fundamentally ruining the way that sort of
> flying is done. see [9B's] comments about ridges less than 500
> feet high. you make whole ridges unflyable. look at may 23rd 2006 sports
> class nationals at mifflin. Liz S and i flew the ridge just north of
> shamokin, and it's top is 400 feet about the valley floor in many spots.
>
> i used to love the finish line. as a kid i'd watch the gliders pass 30 feet
> overhead dumping water on me and the uvalde ramp. the temporary relief from
> the heat, and the excitement of watching such a magnificent craft skate
> just overhead was pure magic. I swear to god if you taint mifflin....
>
> And if you can't fix people cirlcing within proximity of a mountain face,
> why endeavor to eliminate circle down near the valley floor. i guarantee
> more accidents happen high up along mountain faces where the proposed hard
> deck isn't in effect.
>
> i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will
> improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to
> stop.

I tried to stay off my keyboard here, I really did, because - as I've noted
elsewhere - I've no skin in the contest-specific game. But as a sailplane
pilot with skin in the USA (not SUA, wry pedantic "clarification" noted)
*soaring* game, I feel the need to add my "+1"!!!

I, too, understand what BB is saying, and why he's tossed it out for
discussion. What I don't really understand is why the heartfelt apparent
non-acceptance of a "market solution" - i.e. non-rules-based approach - in
this particular instance. Perfection never being an option in human affairs,
identifying where "common sense ends" and "slippery slopes begin" is (choose
what applies & feel free to add your own): not an exact science; individual
judgment; an academic exercise; etc.

Color me genuinely perplexed and somewhat baffled by the "Proper Rules Can
Universally Fix Everything" school of thought...whether it be in soaring or
(gasp) government (at every level). Once "a generally acceptable minimum" of
rules exist, go play, live life, man up to your actions (both as an individual
and as a society), be personally accountable for your actions. The general
welfare of society will be enhanced, "unnecessary governance" will be minimized.

I'll go pretend I've taken my meds, now. :)

Bob W.

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

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

Agreed, my second hospital landing was prefaced by a "glide" I never wanted to do in the first part, absolutely never want me, or others, to do again.
You know the site and that route.
I think you were there for both my lawn landings.
A rusty pilot may have broken something on my second one.
I am all for trying to keep things safe, but there becomes a fine line in certain situations where it is "sorta OK" for one and a statistic for another.

I remember a "squirrel" that landed south at HHSC in a fairly new ASW-24, didn't have enough brake (really!?!?) to stop on the pavement, watched him go over the backside of the hill!
Glad he didn't hit trailers parked down there.
Peeps like that can't land in middling sized field let alone an airport.

The question is, at what level of competence do we write rules for?
Is it different for a regional vs. a nationals?
The possible assumption being that Nats is a higher level. On the other hand, with declining participation in contests, the minimums to get in may be lowered so the site can "maybe" break even.

Sorta screwed one way or another.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

I sort of had a different version on all of this.

Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.

Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[[email protected]]

This thread got started by a pilot dying and we talking about how to prevent it.

While I like rules (by nature) and have no problem with a hard deck that ends your day. I do think most rules add to safe behavior, such as minimum finish height. i.e. There is no doubt pilots will finish at the height you set more or less (even if it's the ground).

I do not think the dangerous behavior comes from the desire for points - it is almost always a pilot miscalculation of lift, good landing and forgetting their own rules (as in my case).

I also am not so sure experience and currency are such significant factors in significant crashes - I have only been Soaring about a decade and the pilots I have heard about were all pretty experienced and some CFIG's. I bet the experience level of most pilots who had significant crashes is pretty high.

As noted the deck below your hard deck is so variable. What is better to be at 300' ft over a enormous plowed field or be at 800 ft trying to get your glass ship into a 500 ft. what looks like a field.

While the Hard Deck would not affect me at all (All the suggested hard decks are way below my personal deck - and I bet the Soaring Safety Foundation would not endorse it ) - I am not sure it really solves the issue. It is one of those problem where we already have the solution in our rules and how we are taught to fly. It is a execution issue, not a rule issue.

Anyone with a Bronze badge knows the rules for any XC Soaring flight. Everyone who has a CFIG sign their BFR, has been taught the rules for safe flying.

How do you get a pilot who is hyper competitive to not loose his grasp on reality/safety - I am not so sure you can make a new rule for that. I have heard this comment "you men sit in Safety meeting before a contest day and then turn into kids once you get inside your glider" - I think she may be right and that's something we need to fight the urge.

I will happily follow what ever rule the RC makes and continue to fly contests - if I keep my head on straight and my eyes outside the cockpit, it is reasonably safe.

WH

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:49:35 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> Just an idea.

Here's mine: Shame the offender at the pilots' meeting. Display the offending bit of the flight trace and give the offender the "opportunity" to give the day's safety talk.

In the case of egregious or repeat violations of good sense, get the safety committee together and discuss a points based penalty (or DQ if it comes to that). I loved Cindy's story about OF, sounds like that they got that one right on the money.

Of course, my interest here has more to do with actual contest safety, less with who gets to go to WGC.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

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

Good comments Bill.

Some of this reminds me of motorcycle and auto racing courses/training (of which I have been to several in each type vehicle).

What you do on a nice weekend afternoon for fun (AKA, fun flight in a sailplane from your home field) tends to become different in a "competition" (whether an actual competition or just a training group) where the "Red Mist" comes into play.
You tend to go tunnel vision and the old "bottom of the gut" safety alarms tend to be muted.
In soaring, this may mean you fly lower, circle lower, wait longer to call it quits to land, whatever.
Rules will not fix this.
Yes, a penalty "may" remove the red mist a little sooner, hopefully reducing broken ships. If you don't break the glider, you likely don't hurt the pilot.

As before, I am not for or against new rules, curious to see the thoughts in this thread and comments on both sides.

[jfitch]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:32:56 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:14:55 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:
>
> > i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to stop.
> >
> > ND
>
> Andy,
>
> John (and Jon) have been quite explicit: They don't give a f@#& about your safety or your behavior. They care that you cannot get any speed points for doing something they don't approve of. Big difference.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

That is exactly right. Except for the "they don't approve of" part. It should be "the consensus doesn't approve of". The question - other than the technical implementation issues (and necessarily prior to it) - is "what is the consensus for acceptable behavior?". This appears to be the main point of contention. It appears that the consensus here is that circling at 300 ft is acceptable, and therefore should be legal in competition. If that is the broad consensus, I'm OK with that, even if it means I may be less competitive, or I vote with my feet.

Don't kid yourself that this isn't reward for risk though. In JJ's story, he got a landout and the other guy got away, probably with 300 more points. Extending this further, what if the bump was at 200'? 100'? The rules committee has to decide that some things are not acceptable, or that anything goes as long as the pilot lives through it. One of the consequences is that many mainstream pilots consider racing to be too risky to participate. I can think offhand of about 10 pilots just at my local glider port who cite this as the primary reason they do not. Not a single one mentions complexity of the rules.

Crashes are never a binary thing: below 300 ft you crash, above that you don't. Rather, below 300' your probability of crashing is higher than above 300' for everyone; and a pilot very experienced as circling below 300' is less likely to crash than one inexperienced at it. Perhaps to gain that experience he had to crash a few times, or at least buy an underwear store. Does anyone know an instructor who will take them out in a two seat to teach circling below 300'? Why not, if it is perfectly safe? I know about 10 CFIGs in the area, not a single one would consider it.

I assumed that there would be a maximum acceptable risk for competition, and that if it could be enforced by rules, this would be fair for everyone and increase participation - unless the skill of circling below 300 ft without crashing is a key skill that we are trying to measure. It appears that among the participants in this discussion (which are a very small minority of the racing community, and a minuscule minority of the soaring community) there is no stomach for this. In maintaining the status quo, you may also be maintaining the currently continuous shrinking trend of the sport.

[[email protected]]

"unless the skill of circling below 300 ft without crashing is a key skill that we are trying to measure."

I would bet no one would say this is a skill anyone is testing in a contest.

I had very good training by a Hall of Fame pilot :)
1. Aren't we supposed to be over the field we selected and able to do a complete pattern, at pattern altitude?
2. Every off farmer field landing I have ever done was the first time I have landed in that field!

So the time you need to look at it and set up is not happening below pattern altitude - we do not have/allow 300 ft patterns at our club - matter of fact we don't have/allow 500 ft patterns either :)

I do like Andy's suggestion, as it has more teaching power - circle below a given altitude anywhere in the contest and explain the "why this was safe" to the room full of pilots the next day.......... Ouch!

Been there done that - will try to never do that again!

WH

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:49:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> I sort of had a different version on all of this.
>
> Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.
>
> Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

You're wanting to penalize folks based on an unreferenced altimeter? I'd engineered a way to avoid that problem -- that is by sampling examination of only those competitors that ended up landing out (and are thereby locally referenced). That makes it so that you are able to have XXX be a tighter measure that isn't wasting altitude and actually correlates exactly with what your eyeball had said about AGL height. By my proposal there is no need to ever have concern about how your altimeter has been impacted by temperature or weather change or location. I think the use of sampling examination would be just as effective in motivating better pilotage in the area of dangerously low saves.

Your proposal requires software. My proposal can be implemented this year by any CD who chooses to do so; the rules and software are in place.

I prefer no altitude be wasted to altimeter uncertainty because that has the ultimate effect of wasting airspace thus impinging on my aviating freewill if I end up having to monitor the instruments and land from a higher altitude than I would otherwise. The measurement uncertainty also will create a problem in the mind of the CD who is assessing the penalty: "Gee sir, I'm sure I wasn't that low, I think the pressure must have been higher out to the east."

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:03:39 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> A few safety notes from SK point of view:
>
> http://www.opensoaring.com/sebastian-kawa-about-finale-sgp-2018-in-vitacura/

Thank you very much for sharing!

[Ron Gleason]

On Monday, 29 January 2018 16:04:43 UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:49:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > I sort of had a different version on all of this.
> >
> > Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.
> >
> > Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> You're wanting to penalize folks based on an unreferenced altimeter? I'd engineered a way to avoid that problem -- that is by sampling examination of only those competitors that ended up landing out (and are thereby locally referenced). That makes it so that you are able to have XXX be a tighter measure that isn't wasting altitude and actually correlates exactly with what your eyeball had said about AGL height. By my proposal there is no need to ever have concern about how your altimeter has been impacted by temperature or weather change or location. I think the use of sampling examination would be just as effective in motivating better pilotage in the area of dangerously low saves.
>
> Your proposal requires software. My proposal can be implemented this year by any CD who chooses to do so; the rules and software are in place.
>
> I prefer no altitude be wasted to altimeter uncertainty because that has the ultimate effect of wasting airspace thus impinging on my aviating freewill if I end up having to monitor the instruments and land from a higher altitude than I would otherwise. The measurement uncertainty also will create a problem in the mind of the CD who is assessing the penalty: "Gee sir, I'm sure I wasn't that low, I think the pressure must have been higher out to the east."

I personally do not like the hard deck idea, let pilots be pilots and compete the way they desire.

Many ideas have been made; let the scorer examine the logs, ask the CD to determine a hard deck for some area of the task, let the organizers define and create SUA file(s) for tasking are, the scoring program can etc.

I ask everyone to keep in mind that one reason the number of contests and contest sites are dwindling is that the qualified people required to organize, manage and run the contest is also dwindling or burned out. Everyone involved with a making a contest happen is over burdened, under paid and are volunteers (few exceptions I am sure). If you want new rules, guidelines, use of technology etc please make sure it is simple, automated and does not place more burdens on the contest organizers. Better yet, step aside from flying and organize and run a contest!

Ron Gleason
Sorry 9B, had to.

[Tango Eight]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 4:43:48 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> One of the consequences is that many mainstream pilots consider racing to be too risky to participate. I can think offhand of about 10 pilots just at my local glider port who cite this as the primary reason they do not. Not a single one mentions complexity of the rules.

Risk (at least w.r.t. terrain, weather) is in your own hands, always!!

Changing rules can have no effect here. What isn't obvious about this?

No one is ever obligated to do anything unsafe in competition.

It is very possible to scorch the field without taking any significant amount of risk.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Michael Opitz]

At 18:36 29 January 2018, Tango Eight wrote:
>On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-5, Michael
Opitz wrote:
>> At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
>> >It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in
Nationals
>> were
>> >d=
>> >ue to a >percent=
>> >age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing
the way
>> the
>> >ga=
>> >me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20
>> >
>>
>> Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of
at
>> least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this
happened.
>> I'm sure there are many more...
>>
>> RO
>
>I'd very much like to see the flight logs. These logs ought to be
public
>domain, so let's shine some light on the subject.
>
>best,
>Evan Ludeman / T8
>
Those that immediately came to my mind were from the time before
loggers.. 1958, 1983, 1985, 1988....

RO

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:04:43 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:49:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > I sort of had a different version on all of this.
> >
> > Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.
> >
> > Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.
> >
> > Andy Blackburn
> > 9B
>
> You're wanting to penalize folks based on an unreferenced altimeter? I'd engineered a way to avoid that problem -- that is by sampling examination of only those competitors that ended up landing out (and are thereby locally referenced). That makes it so that you are able to have XXX be a tighter measure that isn't wasting altitude and actually correlates exactly with what your eyeball had said about AGL height. By my proposal there is no need to ever have concern about how your altimeter has been impacted by temperature or weather change or location. I think the use of sampling examination would be just as effective in motivating better pilotage in the area of dangerously low saves.
>
> Your proposal requires software. My proposal can be implemented this year by any CD who chooses to do so; the rules and software are in place.
>
> I prefer no altitude be wasted to altimeter uncertainty because that has the ultimate effect of wasting airspace thus impinging on my aviating freewill if I end up having to monitor the instruments and land from a higher altitude than I would otherwise. The measurement uncertainty also will create a problem in the mind of the CD who is assessing the penalty: "Gee sir, I'm sure I wasn't that low, I think the pressure must have been higher out to the east."

Well, my idea is that you get a pass if you can demonstrate to the CD and the contest committee that you were in position to make a landing into a specific field going the right direction. A soft deck if you will. The software just flags possible abuses using a combination of GPS and baro altitude, but it's up to the pilot to demonstrate that it wasn't a brain-dead maneuver. Certainly if you land there the altitude is more certain, but I think generally it's a bit less about the altitude than the situation. Push it down low and you better have a plan. If you have a plan, no problem. If you can't come up with what passes for a plan - even after the fact - you get subjected to the collective judgement of contest committee. The uncertainty of when you get tagged makes it even more important to always have a plan. People like absolute, quantitative rules, but this doesn't seem to be a situation where software is going to be able to tell if you were flying in a safe manner, but your fellow pilots may have a pretty good shot at getting it right.

I don't think I've turned in a thermal below 500' since the 80s. Is this really a habit for people? Doesn't seem like a winning strategy to push that low on a regular basis.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[krasw]

No one circles at 300ft, that is just bs. At that altitude you are on short final for landing. Don't believe everything you read folks. If someone has done it once and survive, congrats, please do not pass the story on.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 3:49:52 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> No one circles at 300ft, that is just bs. At that altitude you are on short final for landing. Don't believe everything you read folks. If someone has done it once and survive, congrats, please do not pass the story on.

I am still waiting for the data, myself. I have flight logs of guys who flew themselves into a bad situation and essentially (my term) panicked, wouldn't commit to the landing because the landing was bound to be crappy. Turning downwind at 80 feet will make it so! I have flight logs of engine starts at 300' with no place to crash. We have the pictures of the wrecks that happened when the engine didn't start at 300'. I have no logs of Nationals contenders or Regional winners that show anything like an intentional roll of the dice to a very low, day or contest winning thermal pulled out of the weeds. Pre-GPS stories are **stories**. Some may even be true. But if you put one of the famous risk takers of old (there were some) against any decent modern soaring pilot in similar hardware, they would not stand a chance. Steady, efficient flying beats the hell out of attempted heroics.

Sometimes the flight into "unlandable terrain" you thought was crazy was simply well managed. There may be a field you don't know about. Flying into any situation that you can survive unscathed only by figuring out a way to climb is sheer lunacy. No one can do this very many times before statistics catch up with them.

The problem children w.r.t. low thermalling are the new guys. I have circled at 300'. When I was a new guy. I'd struggle down to 300' then finally roll the wings level and land, generally in some huge flat benign field. When confronted with more challenging options, I was a little smarter. I made some spaghetti patterns down to about 300' as recently as perhaps 8 years ago. And I finally concluded that it was much more satisfying to give up a little more gracefully and fly my pattern and landing with panache. While I don't enjoy the risk or inconvenience, the patterns and landings are usually quite interesting and even fun. There are always problems to be solved, the places I end up are often very beautiful.

Important aside: Anyone who has had the opportunity to do some RC model soaring will learn much about thermal structure below 500'. And none of what you learn will make you inclined to try it at full scale. It is quite unlikely to work.

As an instructor and XC advocate, the single biggest concern I have is getting the new guys calibrated on risk assessment & risk management. We have seen cases of guys who are very willing to stack on risk in attempt to hang with glider pilots who are much better soaring pilots. Depending on terrain (and we have much that is difficult in New England) that can / eventually will lead to disaster if unchecked. The new guy mindset seems to be (in some cases) "XC soaring is dangerous, I might as well get used to it and man up". I wonder how much this attitude is fueled by threads such as this?

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 7:38:01 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 3:49:52 AM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
> > No one circles at 300ft, that is just bs. At that altitude you are on short final for landing. Don't believe everything you read folks. If someone has done it once and survive, congrats, please do not pass the story on.
>
> I am still waiting for the data, myself. I have flight logs of guys who flew themselves into a bad situation and essentially (my term) panicked, wouldn't commit to the landing because the landing was bound to be crappy. Turning downwind at 80 feet will make it so! I have flight logs of engine starts at 300' with no place to crash. We have the pictures of the wrecks that happened when the engine didn't start at 300'. I have no logs of Nationals contenders or Regional winners that show anything like an intentional roll of the dice to a very low, day or contest winning thermal pulled out of the weeds. Pre-GPS stories are **stories**. Some may even be true. But if you put one of the famous risk takers of old (there were some) against any decent modern soaring pilot in similar hardware, they would not stand a chance. Steady, efficient flying beats the hell out of attempted heroics.
>
> Sometimes the flight into "unlandable terrain" you thought was crazy was simply well managed. There may be a field you don't know about. Flying into any situation that you can survive unscathed only by figuring out a way to climb is sheer lunacy. No one can do this very many times before statistics catch up with them.
>
> The problem children w.r.t. low thermalling are the new guys. I have circled at 300'. When I was a new guy. I'd struggle down to 300' then finally roll the wings level and land, generally in some huge flat benign field. When confronted with more challenging options, I was a little smarter. I made some spaghetti patterns down to about 300' as recently as perhaps 8 years ago. And I finally concluded that it was much more satisfying to give up a little more gracefully and fly my pattern and landing with panache. While I don't enjoy the risk or inconvenience, the patterns and landings are usually quite interesting and even fun. There are always problems to be solved, the places I end up are often very beautiful.
>
> Important aside: Anyone who has had the opportunity to do some RC model soaring will learn much about thermal structure below 500'. And none of what you learn will make you inclined to try it at full scale. It is quite unlikely to work.
>
> As an instructor and XC advocate, the single biggest concern I have is getting the new guys calibrated on risk assessment & risk management. We have seen cases of guys who are very willing to stack on risk in attempt to hang with glider pilots who are much better soaring pilots. Depending on terrain (and we have much that is difficult in New England) that can / eventually will lead to disaster if unchecked. The new guy mindset seems to be (in some cases) "XC soaring is dangerous, I might as well get used to it and man up". I wonder how much this attitude is fueled by threads such as this?
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8
It is dumb even when flying a plastic shopping bag. But here is what it looks like being done. You can see how small/weak the thermals are. If you can't go that slow it almost certainly isn't going to work.
https://youtu.be/-nzj9TR8pdI?t=2m51s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGQqmXGtfjw

[ND]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:00:15 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> > Golly, I thought at the 2017 18 meter nationals, they had a 50 ft finish line?
>
> Any contest that includes a sports class has to use a finish ring with the designated minimum. The finish line still puts in an occasional guest appearance at Nats.
>
> T8

well, and thank god for that!

[ND]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:01:01 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.
>
> The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.
>
> Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.
>
> These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.
>
> Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.
>
> Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.
>
> Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.
>
> John Cochrane

I invite you to apply hard deck logic to this flight. i'm genuinely curious to hear how a hard deck would handle this sort of situation:
https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightinfo.html?flightId=1097283864

Look at the KML file. i'm talking specifically about the final leg. i was ridge soaring the lower step of stone mountain on the last leg of the race. had i slowed down and taken time to get to the higher step, (no reason to, the lower step was working fine)i would not have won the day, and by extension, the nationals. i was perhaps 600 feet above the valley floor. sometimes less. constantly watching the fields go by, revising landing options every 30 seconds.

this was perfectly safe, and if i hadn't done it i wouldn't have won the contest. it's a situation that the hard deck wouldn't allow for. for 13 miles i was 600 feet agl. my tone is not adversarial, i just want to see how you would handle this situation. i think the hard deck idea is too black and white for all the possible scenarios.

[Steve Koerner]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:29:24 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:04:43 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
> > On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:49:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > > I sort of had a different version on all of this.
> > >
> > > Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.
> > >
> > > Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.
> > >
> > > Andy Blackburn
> > > 9B
> >
> > You're wanting to penalize folks based on an unreferenced altimeter? I'd engineered a way to avoid that problem -- that is by sampling examination of only those competitors that ended up landing out (and are thereby locally referenced). That makes it so that you are able to have XXX be a tighter measure that isn't wasting altitude and actually correlates exactly with what your eyeball had said about AGL height. By my proposal there is no need to ever have concern about how your altimeter has been impacted by temperature or weather change or location. I think the use of sampling examination would be just as effective in motivating better pilotage in the area of dangerously low saves.
> >
> > Your proposal requires software. My proposal can be implemented this year by any CD who chooses to do so; the rules and software are in place.
> >
> > I prefer no altitude be wasted to altimeter uncertainty because that has the ultimate effect of wasting airspace thus impinging on my aviating freewill if I end up having to monitor the instruments and land from a higher altitude than I would otherwise. The measurement uncertainty also will create a problem in the mind of the CD who is assessing the penalty: "Gee sir, I'm sure I wasn't that low, I think the pressure must have been higher out to the east."
>
> Well, my idea is that you get a pass if you can demonstrate to the CD and the contest committee that you were in position to make a landing into a specific field going the right direction. A soft deck if you will. The software just flags possible abuses using a combination of GPS and baro altitude, but it's up to the pilot to demonstrate that it wasn't a brain-dead maneuver. Certainly if you land there the altitude is more certain, but I think generally it's a bit less about the altitude than the situation. Push it down low and you better have a plan. If you have a plan, no problem. If you can't come up with what passes for a plan - even after the fact - you get subjected to the collective judgement of contest committee. The uncertainty of when you get tagged makes it even more important to always have a plan. People like absolute, quantitative rules, but this doesn't seem to be a situation where software is going to be able to tell if you were flying in a safe manner, but your fellow pilots may have a pretty good shot at getting it right.
>
> I don't think I've turned in a thermal below 500' since the 80s. Is this really a habit for people? Doesn't seem like a winning strategy to push that low on a regular basis.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

I think the 300 ft number comes up as a level that everyone will agree to be unambiguously dangerous and deserving of sanction. That does not imply that 301 feet is safe. It is not. Earlier in this discussion, the concern was raised -
that someone might interpret that being above the sanction level, whatever that is set at, makes it OK.

The suggestion that an armchair committee might judge the safety margin of a landing without having been there and without an accurate flight log seems pretty silly to me. Make a penalty assessment on that basis and you'll have people storming away with their glider in tow. Rules need to be objective.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:58:45 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> I invite you to apply hard deck logic to this flight.

John's been really clear about this... read it again Andy. His intent isn't to mess with ridge & mountain flying in any way.

Away from the airport, away from the ridge, he's proposing a 500' stairstep with a 500 agl minimum. In the big valley at Mifflin (elevation 800-ish) that's a 1500 msl hard deck. Can you thermal safely out of the Mifflin valley from 1500msl on a nice easy day? Certainly. John's proposal is to give you an administrative landout **before** you become dangerous to yourself..

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

John's been really clear about this... read it again Andy.

John has not been really clear, John has rvised his rule as the discusion
has gone on.


I would argue that putting a hard deck rule in place has the ability to
create a safety issue rather than mitigate it.

What happens when the competitor drops below the proposed hard deck?

Must they simply land?

Do they give up trying, and then land out trying to get home, possibl
unfocussed and a bit dejected?

You would then be putting pilots in a situation where they are forced int
landing in an unknown environment and by doing so increasing the risk.

Statistics are statistics and can be manipulated to give the desire
outcome.

The issue here is field section, or lack thereof.

There are many factors that influence what is a safe height to climb away:

1) Experience
2) Hours on type
3) Terrain
4) Having a chosen / planned land out option
5) Aircraft type
6) Weather - reliable day Vs unreliable day

Competition gliding is in decline, keep adding rules which removes th
pilot judgment, the decline will be more rapid.

Just my humble opinion.

1000 + hours
Flown 15+ contests
Past contest director
150 hours in the mountains.

[Karl Striedieck[_2_]]

This hard deck concept fits in with the liberal, big brother, zero pain concept emanating from DC that is gradually dumbing down and choking away individual freedoms in our lives. Same for the min cylinder finish height.
Pilots know that engaging in any activity that exceeds 10 mph or 10 feet high has an element of danger. Let the pilot decide whether to chance a landing in field with hidden fences, wires, holes, crops, or animals or climb out and fly home.
As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.

Karl Striedieck

[ND]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:25:13 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:58:45 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
> > I invite you to apply hard deck logic to this flight.
>
> John's been really clear about this... read it again Andy. His intent isn't to mess with ridge & mountain flying in any way.
>
> Away from the airport, away from the ridge, he's proposing a 500' stairstep with a 500 agl minimum. In the big valley at Mifflin (elevation 800-ish) that's a 1500 msl hard deck. Can you thermal safely out of the Mifflin valley from 1500msl on a nice easy day? Certainly. John's proposal is to give you an administrative landout **before** you become dangerous to yourself.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Hi Evan,

yeah, i know what he's trying to do. it would just be interesting to see how to apply hard deck logic to that situation specifically. how would the hard deck taper to meet the ridge..? et cet.

as far as administrative landouts over the valley, or a flat land location.. let's say that you or i are down low and we've busted the hard deck just barely. Rats! toast for the day. contest blown. but seconds later we feel a bump we consider to be solid, we might still decide to turn. what i'm suggesting is that you can take someone's speed points away with the hard deck, but you can't stop them from circling. pilots might still be inclined to try and circle if they think they can avoid a retrieve and potential damage to their 'sheen. that's my argument.

[ND]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:40:35 AM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> This hard deck concept fits in with the liberal, big brother, zero pain concept emanating from DC that is gradually dumbing down and choking away individual freedoms in our lives. Same for the min cylinder finish height.
> Pilots know that engaging in any activity that exceeds 10 mph or 10 feet high has an element of danger. Let the pilot decide whether to chance a landing in field with hidden fences, wires, holes, crops, or animals or climb out and fly home.
> As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.
>
> Karl Striedieck

Thank you Karl, Exactly!

[Steve Koerner]

The suggestion that an armchair committee might judge the safety margin of a landing without having been there and without an accurate flight log seems pretty silly to me.

CORRECTION: I meant 'judge the safety margin of a save'. If a landing occurs, then the scrutiny can be valid (as I've tried to point out here earlier).

Since very low saves almost never work, we're not actually going to let much get by with such a sampling scheme. The ultimate goal of motivating safer flying would be met.

[Justin Craig[_3_]]

"Since very low saves almost never work, we're not actually going to let
much"

Yep -Hard deck is a silly idea. LLets move on!


At 16:59 30 January 2018, Steve Koerner wrote:
>The suggestion that an armchair committee might judge the safety margin
of
>a landing without having been there and without an accurate flight log
>seems pretty silly to me.
>
>CORRECTION: I meant 'judge the safety margin of a save'. If a landing
>occurs, then the scrutiny can be valid (as I've tried to point out here
>earlier).
>
>Since very low saves almost never work, we're not actually going to let
>much get by with such a sampling scheme. The ultimate goal of motivating
>safer flying would be met.
>

[Mike the Strike]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:40:35 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> This hard deck concept fits in with the liberal, big brother, zero pain concept emanating from DC that is gradually dumbing down and choking away individual freedoms in our lives. Same for the min cylinder finish height.
> Pilots know that engaging in any activity that exceeds 10 mph or 10 feet high has an element of danger. Let the pilot decide whether to chance a landing in field with hidden fences, wires, holes, crops, or animals or climb out and fly home.
> As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.
>
> Karl Striedieck

Karl said it for me! Any experienced cross-country pilot should be capable of making these decisions for themselves and not be subjected to an increasing barrage of restrictive rules. There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try. Similarly flying near mountain ridges where a rough thermal could toss you into the rocks but smooth ridge lift or weaker thermals might be safe. And if you can't properly plan and execute a final glide, you should take up another sport!

Mike

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:40:35 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> This hard deck concept fits in with the liberal, big brother, zero pain concept emanating from DC that is gradually dumbing down and choking away individual freedoms in our lives. Same for the min cylinder finish height.
> Pilots know that engaging in any activity that exceeds 10 mph or 10 feet high has an element of danger. Let the pilot decide whether to chance a landing in field with hidden fences, wires, holes, crops, or animals or climb out and fly home.
> As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.
>
> Karl Striedieck

Not a racer, but assigning a political "concept" one way or the other to a rule suggestion is one of the more ridiculous ideas I can think of. Do you really think there is an actual connection between the two? Or would it be better that it be taken at face value as an honest suggestion to improve safety. Nah, must come from someones agenda apparently. Maybe the connection you find is more about you than anything having to do with the rule suggestion.

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

I believe the current thought is.......,"you blow the hard deck, argue your case to the CD", you give a good case (possible in your case), no penalty. Carry on.

I have posted a few real world examples where some "value" for a hard deck may land someone even though the flight may be "safe".

As I stated before, you can't fix stupid, nor can you make rules to remove stupid and not possibly kill good skill.

Good discussion, not a current competition pilot but I have done local flying in 1-26 and up, regionals and Nats. In general, you will likely find (as mentioned in this thread) "winners" are not usually scraping rocks or doing other unsafe maneuvers.

I started going to contests where you picked your start time at the pilots meeting (as support/crew) and have been around as support or flying since.
Many rules changes, still stupid stuff going on (see my earlier post about a pilot with good brakes not being able to stop on the pavement on HHSC....).
Sheesh.

I still have no say in this current discussion, just following along to see what rules I may deal with down the road.

[Clay[_5_]]

"There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try."

If we could see some contest flight logs demonstrating the former then this might all go away as you wish.

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 8:40:35 AM UTC-8, Karl Striedieck wrote:
> As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.
>
> Karl Striedieck

On a day when most people can stay high, true. On a day when only a few make it home, not true. In a contest where that day determines the winner, a single low save can determine the winner.

That's why a scoring change might be able to accomplish the same goal: throwing out the low day score, or the high and low score of each contestant. Consistency counts for more, and would influence behavior some too - if a guy is at 500 ft and struggling he will just think, "I'll throw this one out" and execute a safe landing.

I'd like to think there is some middle ground between complete proscribed flight and the notion that making it back with all your blood inside and your heart still beating is defined as a safe flight.

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-8, Mike the Strike wrote:
>
> Karl said it for me! Any experienced cross-country pilot should be capable of making these decisions for themselves and not be subjected to an increasing barrage of restrictive rules. There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try. Similarly flying near mountain ridges where a rough thermal could toss you into the rocks but smooth ridge lift or weaker thermals might be safe. And if you can't properly plan and execute a final glide, you should take up another sport!
>
> Mike

“One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity there ain’t nothing can beat teamwork.�
Mark Twain

[[email protected]]

I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

[Dan Marotta]

Am I the only one who sees the irony of two of the often expressed
views, Hard Deck vs. Dwindling Contest Participation?



On 1/30/2018 11:14 AM, wrote:
> I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

--
Dan, 5J

[ND]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:12:08 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-8, Mike the Strike wrote:
> >
> > Karl said it for me! Any experienced cross-country pilot should be capable of making these decisions for themselves and not be subjected to an increasing barrage of restrictive rules. There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try. Similarly flying near mountain ridges where a rough thermal could toss you into the rocks but smooth ridge lift or weaker thermals might be safe. And if you can't properly plan and execute a final glide, you should take up another sport!
> >
> > Mike
>
> “One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity there ain’t nothing can beat teamwork.�
> Mark Twain

what the hell did mark twain know. he was dumb enough to spend summers in elmira, when he could been in Uvalde or Hobbs.

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

That is in the face of most of the USofA law, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Try to tell that to a traffic court judge.......:-(

Totally I'm glad I'm not on the US TC, no matter what you do, you seem to be wrong.
I wonder how many are "lookers" vs. "contestants"?

I feel participants should drive the rules, not lookers.
No, I have not been contacted on rules for a few years, I have not been registered for a contest, only flew a day or so as, "edumacated baggage" as I wasn't current enough to be safe to me or others.

[Karl Striedieck[_2_]]

‘Nuther consideration. Rules simplification has been a concern of many contest pilots, and thus the rules committee, for years. I can’t imagine how many cosine thetas John Good would have to pull out of his MIT hat to make this hard deck business lawyer proof and executable by Guy Byars our scoring “guy.�

Karl Striedieck

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:14:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

Just for clarity let me point out the above is sarcasm. Meant to mock those who would add rules, any rules.

[Clay[_5_]]

Rules of golf: 200 pages
Sailing: 190 pages
Tennis: 38 pages
Soaring: 34 pages

Argument against rules is a red herring. Anyone using that as an excuse not to fly contests, I just don't buy it. If you can decipher an aeronautical chart you can figure out the rules of soaring.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

It's not hard. Here is what is needed. The current rule

5.6.2.3 The CD may declare additional airspace to be closed.

All that is needed is one more sentence.

5.6.2.3 The CD may declare additional airspace to be closed, and may specify penalties for such airspace. The provisions of this rule can be used to set minimum MSL altitudes in some or all of the task area, and to score pilots as landing out if they descent below such altitudes.

Period. That is all that is needed.

As for the scoring program, it works just like restricted airspace now. Put in an SUA file, the scoring program says "warning, entry to restricted airspace" and the scorer can ether put in a penalty, or in the "edit flight log" box enter the current position as the scored landing position.

One may dislike the rule, but it is not complex to write or to administer.

John Cochrane

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 2:03:08 PM UTC-8, Clay wrote:
> Rules of golf: 200 pages
> Sailing: 190 pages
> Tennis: 38 pages
> Soaring: 34 pages
>
> Argument against rules is a red herring. Anyone using that as an excuse not to fly contests, I just don't buy it. If you can decipher an aeronautical chart you can figure out the rules of soaring.

It would make an interesting pole, among all pilots who might consider racing (participants and potential participants): What is your number one concern in soaring competition: 1) Safety, 2) rules complexity.

In my own informal polling #1 wins hands down, #2 is rarely mentioned if at all.

Acceptance of risk is an interesting and well studied bit of human psychology. The longer you engage in risk the more accepting of it you become, even though the risk does not change.

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 12:00:05 PM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
> Time to change the subject line?
>
> I have been thinking about the hard deck idea. Possibly fine in flat land
> soaring but I am not sure it adds much when ridge flying.
>
> I perceive another problem: Turbos are even more dangerous near the ground
> than pure gliders. I may be happy in my 27 at 500ft but in a turbo?
>
> Setting a 1000ft deck because that is safer for turbos will take away the
> advantage that real gliders have in this zone. Many pure pilots would say
> this advantage goes some of the way to make up for the additional
> opportunities turbo pilots have in competition.
>
> Setting a turbo deck for everyone will force everyone to go to the dark
> side!
>
> Jim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXFaPNqKtS8

Was just sent the above link. The 19:00-minute mark starts a good discussion.

A low airspeed skidding turn below 200 agl followed with a stall/spin will result in a hard, nose down ground thump. I did watch the entire clip, but no mention that our contests represent any additional danger to these type accidents(might have missed that).
They also speak of stress and how that may play a part, with other thoughts.. Good review. They do encourage more safety discussion's on all of our parts which is a good thing. Helps keep many in the safety loop.


Best. Tom. #711.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

In my informal and formal polling, among people who fly contests, safety is far down on the list.

The major safety concern is that "some other bozo will run in to me," hence you can get some interest about midairs, including flarm and procedures to help avoid midairs like not setting out and return assigned tasks. Note that its always the other bozo. Midairs are far, far, down the list of actual accident causes but by far the main -- if not only -- concern of most pilots. Other refinements of the rules for safety, removing points incentives for risks, such as high finishes are down in the tar and feather and drive you out of town realm of unpopularity.

Complaining about complexity is very high on the list, until you propose measures that would actually help complexity. Eliminate the complex graduated penalties? Well, we don't like complexity but not that one. And so it goes..

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

The CD can do this...........the CD can do that..........how many of you guys have paid you'd dues and spent a week in the CD barel? I have CD'd 3 nats and more regionals than I can remember and believe me your good old CD's plate is overflowing. He's already reviewing motorglider traces to see if they motored directly to the designated release area and didn't just motor around looking for the best thermal in town. He's reviewing all traces on a thunderstorm day to see if anyone logged a little unauthorized IFR time .............yes, this happened! I reported it, but nothing was done and by the end of the week at least 4 guys did it..........I know because they told me they iced up!
Sorry about my little rant, I feel much better now,
JJ

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 30 January 2018 18:26:23 UTC-7, wrote:
> The CD can do this...........the CD can do that..........how many of you guys have paid you'd dues and spent a week in the CD barel? I have CD'd 3 nats and more regionals than I can remember and believe me your good old CD's plate is overflowing. He's already reviewing motorglider traces to see if they motored directly to the designated release area and didn't just motor around looking for the best thermal in town. He's reviewing all traces on a thunderstorm day to see if anyone logged a little unauthorized IFR time .............yes, this happened! I reported it, but nothing was done and by the end of the week at least 4 guys did it..........I know because they told me they iced up!
> Sorry about my little rant, I feel much better now,
> JJ

Thanks JJ, I posted earlier a similar comment, The CD can do this, the scorer can check this and manually do this, the organizers can create a SUA file etc.

If it cannot be automated and simply implemented then it will be a burden to the contest folks.

KISS please

[Michael Opitz]

At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 8:40:35 AM UTC-8, Karl
Striedieck wrote:
>> As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on
the
>scor=
>e sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a
back
>p=
>age score.=20
>>=20
>> Karl Striedieck
>
>On a day when most people can stay high, true. On a day when
only a few
>mak=
>e it home, not true. In a contest where that day determines the
winner, a
>s=
>ingle low save can determine the winner.=20
>
>That's why a scoring change might be able to accomplish the same
goal:
>thro=
>wing out the low day score, or the high and low score of each
contestant.
>C=
>onsistency counts for more, and would influence behavior some
too - if a
>gu=
>y is at 500 ft and struggling he will just think, "I'll throw this one
>out"=
> and execute a safe landing.=20
>
>I'd like to think there is some middle ground between complete
proscribed
>f=
>light and the notion that making it back with all your blood inside
and
>you=
>r heart still beating is defined as a safe flight.
>

George Moffat and the sailing crowd have always proposed to drop
both the individual pilot's best and worst days because "that's what
they do in sailing". You might be able to do that in a Grand Prix
format where each day counts the same. I don't see how we can do
that as long as we have devalued days. A pilot can be a day winner
on a very difficult 600 point day, and be forced to drop his
day win because all of the other contest days weren't devalued,
even though he had another day where he only got 850 points
compared to that other day's winner?

Please tell me how you propose to make that fair?? I can't see it
being done without a total overhaul of the scoring system.

RO

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 3:26:01 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> In my informal and formal polling, among people who fly contests, safety is far down on the list.
>

But those are preselected as the ones who have accepted the risk. Ask the ones who don't fly contests why they don't.

The rules aren't any more complicated than many other sports. Certainly not as complicated as sailing. The scoring on the other hand is pegged at the complex end of sports. So, yes, a scoring overhaul seems like a good idea.

[Michael Opitz]

At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:

>On a day when most people can stay high, true. On a day when
only a few make it home, not true. In a contest where that day
determines the winner, a single low save can determine the winner.

The 1958 WGC Open Class was won on a day like that, except that
E.G. Haase (as relayed personally to me) made a string of very
low saves (albeit all over very landable terrain) and was thus able
to tiptoe his way to victory that day. He was then able to defend his
lead until the contest ended. It was a brilliant flight, not luck. Some
pilots are just better at that kind of flying than others. For example,
in Belgium, they have a maximum altitude of 3,000' due to
controlled airspace over the entire country. Those guys fly low a
lot.

The 1985 WGC STD Class was also won that way on a very difficult
day where a lot of us landed out. LB found a small thermal at
around 100 meters, (possibly marked by a team mate?) which
eventually got him high enough to get back home. This gave
him enough of a lead to win the contest. Leo later even wrote an
article about "the thermal that won him the WGC".

I am sure that there are more examples of this.... I am just
personally familiar with these two right off the top of my head.

Contests are most often decided on the difficult days. In general,
the performance on those days separates the best from the rest.
If one just wants to race on the nice days, it seems like an OLC
camp would be the place to go. If you want to pick a national
champion who will have any kind of a shot at being competitive
at a WGC, then one can't eliminate the difficult days.

RO

[Ventus_a]

No one circles at 300ft, that is just bs. At that altitude you are on short final for landing. Don't believe everything you read folks. If someone has done it once and survive, congrats, please do not pass the story on.

They do and they aren't always proud of it. Lessons were learned by more than just the pilot

:-) Colin

https://www.dropbox.com/s/atfnpzvs207t3yb/5apc0al1.IGC?dl=0

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:51:44 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

> But those are preselected as the ones who have accepted the risk. Ask the ones who don't fly contests why they don't.

The reason I don't enter a race at the local ski hill is "I don't know how to do that safely". It's nothing to do with the sport, which although clearly dangerous, is "safe enough" in the hands of the appropriately skilled. If there isn't a large element of this in the responses you have summarized... there probably should be. Not all racing venues are beginner friendly..

There are many ways that you could create a beginner friendly racing environment in e.g. the Sierras, and you have suggested a few yourself. If anyone is inclined to do this, why not give it a try on a non-sanctioned basis? There's no need to change the rules for the rest of the world for this.

Or perhaps your friends just aren't interested in racing.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:51:44 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

> But those are preselected as the ones who have accepted the risk. Ask the ones who don't fly contests why they don't.

Really, and a hard deck would make them come? If safety is a concern for some folks they should set their own minimums and participate. No one forces anyone to take risks. During one National contest I withdrew because I was not willing to break my own minimums. Let's be real here.

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 7:48:26 AM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:51:44 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>
> > But those are preselected as the ones who have accepted the risk. Ask the ones who don't fly contests why they don't.
>
> Really, and a hard deck would make them come? If safety is a concern for some folks they should set their own minimums and participate. No one forces anyone to take risks. During one National contest I withdrew because I was not willing to break my own minimums. Let's be real here.

I completely agree
Well said
UH

[Mike the Strike]

He's reviewing all traces on a thunderstorm day to see if anyone logged a little unauthorized IFR time ............yes, this happened! I reported it, but nothing was done and by the end of the week at least 4 guys did it...........I know because they told me they iced up!
> Sorry about my little rant, I feel much better now,
> JJ

Cloud flying isn't a big deal for those, like me, who learned to fly in Britain and South Africa where it is permitted. I still do it occasionally when safe to do so.

Here in the USA, my observation in contests is that no-one observes required FAR minima around clouds - in a strong thermal every pilot will keep climbing until their upper wing disappears into the wispies. I have seen many pilots enter cloud, including climbing into them, flying through them, over them and round them! Although against the rules (and possibly dangerous) it is almost never punished.

Perhaps the rules committee could come up with a formula to deal with this little problem (a challenge for our dismal scientist!).

Mike

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The RC did partially address flying too close to clouds, at least pre start.. The top of the start gate is supposed to be set 500 feet below cloudbase. CDs don't frequently follow the guidance. Out on course.. well, there is no way to do this as simple as the hard deck. And, let's not invent problems that aren't there. In the wispies before start is indeed a problem. There have not been any accidents due to misbehavior of this sort on course, nor any charges that people are winning contests by seriously dangerous behavior. Not perfect, but let's leave well enough alone.

Where this is contentious is the ban on cloud flying instruments. Start a new thread if we want to tear that one up some more.

John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

John Good's very clever and very simple "worst day scoring adjustment" allowed you effectively to drop a day, but in a way that worked with devaluation. It was in the rules for many years, but nobody ever used it, so it got dropped in a simplification effort. If any contest wants to try it, the rule is sitting there and implemented in the scoring program, so ask for a waiver. I won't explain again here how it works, but yes it does take in to account day devaluation, and short contests.

John Cochrane

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 4:07:14 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:51:44 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>
> > But those are preselected as the ones who have accepted the risk. Ask the ones who don't fly contests why they don't.
>
> The reason I don't enter a race at the local ski hill is "I don't know how to do that safely". It's nothing to do with the sport, which although clearly dangerous, is "safe enough" in the hands of the appropriately skilled.. If there isn't a large element of this in the responses you have summarized... there probably should be. Not all racing venues are beginner friendly.
>
> There are many ways that you could create a beginner friendly racing environment in e.g. the Sierras, and you have suggested a few yourself. If anyone is inclined to do this, why not give it a try on a non-sanctioned basis? There's no need to change the rules for the rest of the world for this.
>
> Or perhaps your friends just aren't interested in racing.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Something is keeping pilots from racing in droves. The pilots I have asked will (and often do) fly the same terrain on the same day - they aren't beginners and this is not beginner terrain where we fly. Several have participated in a few races, then quit doing so because they felt they needed to violate their minimum safety criteria to have any chance. You can't have it both ways: "if you don't like it don't race" and "we want more people to race".

The idea that folks should show up, pay the entry fee, take the time off, just to participate for fun using a different standard of safety with the knowledge that this will make them uncompetitive isn't attractive to a lot of pilots. They can go fly and have a nice cross country day anytime, anywhere, without any of that.

By keeping the sport confined to your definition of pure, you are making it vanish. In almost all speed sports, rules have been put in place to curtail extreme behavior for the sake of fair and safe competition. Why is soaring so different?

[Jim White[_3_]]

At 02:15 31 January 2018, Michael Opitz wrote:
>
>George Moffat and the sailing crowd have always proposed to drop
>both the individual pilot's best and worst days because "that's what
>they do in sailing". You might be able to do that in a Grand Prix
>format where each day counts the same. I don't see how we can do
>that as long as we have devalued days. A pilot can be a day winner
>on a very difficult 600 point day, and be forced to drop his
>day win because all of the other contest days weren't devalued,
>even though he had another day where he only got 850 points
>compared to that other day's winner?
>
>Please tell me how you propose to make that fair?? I can't see it
>being done without a total overhaul of the scoring system.
>
>RO
>
I have never understood why a difficult day gets devalued. Seems to me that
difficult days are a better test of skill.

Devaluation also has the effect that CDs try to set 3 hour tasks. Why if
the window is short?

Not devaluing days would remove some complexity and IMO improve
competitions!

Jim

[Clay[_5_]]

Something is keeping pilots from racing in droves. The pilots I have asked will (and often do) fly the same terrain on the same day - they aren't beginners and this is not beginner terrain where we fly. Several have participated in a few races, then quit doing so because they felt they needed to violate their minimum safety criteria to have any chance. You can't have it both ways: "if you don't like it don't race" and "we want more people to race".
>
> The idea that folks should show up, pay the entry fee, take the time off, just to participate for fun using a different standard of safety with the knowledge that this will make them uncompetitive isn't attractive to a lot of pilots. They can go fly and have a nice cross country day anytime, anywhere, without any of that.
>
> By keeping the sport confined to your definition of pure, you are making it vanish. In almost all speed sports, rules have been put in place to curtail extreme behavior for the sake of fair and safe competition. Why is soaring so different?

P3 has floated the idea of skill/experience-based classes. When I road-raced motorcycles, that was the system. It is fun to race against people of similar experience, and not be getting stuffed by the fast guys in every corner. The trophies come quicker too. In soaring, even in Sports Class, you'll be competing against WGC caliber pilots. Kinda exciting, but not so much when you get smoked by 20 mph. But I don't know if we really have the level of participation to do this kind of format, or even if it would solve anything.

[ND]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:12:45 PM UTC-5, Clay wrote:
> Something is keeping pilots from racing in droves. The pilots I have asked will (and often do) fly the same terrain on the same day - they aren't beginners and this is not beginner terrain where we fly. Several have participated in a few races, then quit doing so because they felt they needed to violate their minimum safety criteria to have any chance. You can't have it both ways: "if you don't like it don't race" and "we want more people to race".
> >
> > The idea that folks should show up, pay the entry fee, take the time off, just to participate for fun using a different standard of safety with the knowledge that this will make them uncompetitive isn't attractive to a lot of pilots. They can go fly and have a nice cross country day anytime, anywhere, without any of that.
> >
> > By keeping the sport confined to your definition of pure, you are making it vanish. In almost all speed sports, rules have been put in place to curtail extreme behavior for the sake of fair and safe competition. Why is soaring so different?
>
> P3 has floated the idea of skill/experience-based classes. When I road-raced motorcycles, that was the system. It is fun to race against people of similar experience, and not be getting stuffed by the fast guys in every corner. The trophies come quicker too. In soaring, even in Sports Class, you'll be competing against WGC caliber pilots. Kinda exciting, but not so much when you get smoked by 20 mph. But I don't know if we really have the level of participation to do this kind of format, or even if it would solve anything.

that's how you learn man! nothing like going and flying the same task as sarah arnold, and she beats you by 5MPH raw speed in her ASW15 while you flew a discus CS. makes you feel like the biggest idiot in the world!

an old saying comes to mind: "if you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room." basically i disagree with skill or experience based contest classes outside of the current separation (regionals vs. nationals). i feel like it will inhibit personal growth as pilots. i know that i became a better pilot by flying against pilots who were better than i am. matter of fact, i'm still doing it. safely completing a regional's gives you all the tools you need to fly safely in a nationals. and all of us a responsible to sit out a mission we aren't comfortable with, or that we feel is outside of our capacity to handle. i see it all the time. people sat out certain ridge tasks at the sports class nationals this past year. in my first contest, i didn't attempt one of the tasks, because i thought the cloud was too low for me to be comfortable.

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 11:12:45 AM UTC-8, Clay wrote:
> Something is keeping pilots from racing in droves. The pilots I have asked will (and often do) fly the same terrain on the same day - they aren't beginners and this is not beginner terrain where we fly. Several have participated in a few races, then quit doing so because they felt they needed to violate their minimum safety criteria to have any chance. You can't have it both ways: "if you don't like it don't race" and "we want more people to race".
> >
> > The idea that folks should show up, pay the entry fee, take the time off, just to participate for fun using a different standard of safety with the knowledge that this will make them uncompetitive isn't attractive to a lot of pilots. They can go fly and have a nice cross country day anytime, anywhere, without any of that.
> >
> > By keeping the sport confined to your definition of pure, you are making it vanish. In almost all speed sports, rules have been put in place to curtail extreme behavior for the sake of fair and safe competition. Why is soaring so different?
>
> P3 has floated the idea of skill/experience-based classes. When I road-raced motorcycles, that was the system. It is fun to race against people of similar experience, and not be getting stuffed by the fast guys in every corner. The trophies come quicker too. In soaring, even in Sports Class, you'll be competing against WGC caliber pilots. Kinda exciting, but not so much when you get smoked by 20 mph. But I don't know if we really have the level of participation to do this kind of format, or even if it would solve anything.

To be clear, experience is not the issue in the pilots I mention. However the local racing events run at our glider port are handicapped by pilot skill. (I can hear the gasps and harrumpfs already.) It isn't a perfect system, but gives the hope - and sometime the reality - that a less experienced pilot can win or place. It is self correcting in that the handicap is increased with wins or places so it becomes harder to win as the pilot goes faster.. This makes everyone try harder. This has definitely increased participation as it challenges everyone, skilled and novice.

The original notion of sports class was to keep the high rated pilots out, but that got thrown away in the interest of filling the grid.

[Clay[_5_]]

> that's how you learn man! nothing like going and flying the same task as sarah arnold, and she beats you by 5MPH raw speed in her ASW15 while you flew a discus CS. makes you feel like the biggest idiot in the world!
>
> an old saying comes to mind: "if you're the smartest person in the room, you're in the wrong room." basically i disagree with skill or experience based contest classes outside of the current separation (regionals vs. nationals). i feel like it will inhibit personal growth as pilots. i know that i became a better pilot by flying against pilots who were better than i am. matter of fact, i'm still doing it. safely completing a regional's gives you all the tools you need to fly safely in a nationals. and all of us a responsible to sit out a mission we aren't comfortable with, or that we feel is outside of our capacity to handle. i see it all the time. people sat out certain ridge tasks at the sports class nationals this past year. in my first contest, i didn't attempt one of the tasks, because i thought the cloud was too low for me to be comfortable.

I basically agree with everything you've said (and have been beaten, repeatedly, by Sarah in that 15), the question is is there a pool of pilots out there who are not competing, but would if there were skill-based classes. I doubt it, but might be worth exploring if we haven't already.

[[email protected]]

"Something is keeping pilots from racing in droves" from up-thread.

First off, I have no dog in this fight. I have never entered a competition and, likely, never will. I can't comment on the safety aspect and how that would impact my decision to race. I did fly in the back seat with KS once at a regional and found the whole thing to be an awesome experience and not the least bit worrying from a safety standpoint. I even thought, "I should give this racing thing a shot." Then, the real reason I don't race woke me from my fantasy. I simply don't have the time or the money to dedicate a week to when the whole thing (or a significant portion thereof) might be a washout. I submit that the cost in both time and money is what keeps the droves of glider pilots at their home airports, not safety. That may convince people to stop racing but I doubt it impacts their decision on whether or not to start. Sorry for the thread drift.

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 3:05:44 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> "Something is keeping pilots from racing in droves" from up-thread.
>

This comes up periodically along with a lot of heart-felt opinions. Below is a note to the US RC that I sent about 6 years ago based on an actual online survey with a statistically significant percentage of potential racing pilots in NY/NJ/PA. It's a bit long, but the conclusion is that there isn't one primary reason folks (at least here in the East) don't compete. The single biggest reason was that people don't have the time to go spend a week at a contest (especially if it gets rained out) given all of the other competing demands for time and money.

Here's the full note. I can make the actual Survey Monkey raw data available should anyone be interested.


Hey guys,

Just passing along the results of a survey I put together last year. The objective was to find out a) if there were a lot of potential racing gliders in our local area that were sitting around in trailers and hangars not doing much and b) why the owners of those gliders weren't participating in races. The results were interesting and a little surprising in some ways and pretty predictable in others. Figured you guys might be interested as having some hard data (albeit from only one region) that might lead to better informed priorities.

I started out by going to every glider operation in Region 2 asking the leaders to help get me in touch with folks who owned gliders. This covered primarily Wurtsboro, Middletown, Blairstown, Van Sant, Beltzville, PGC, Brandywine, and Morgantown. Figure that's eastern PA, NJ, and Southeastern NY.. I cross-checked that against the FAA database of registered gliders in those states. I think I was able to "find" about 2/3 of the registered gliders based in this area along with their owners/pilots. I definitely think I got the majority of glass single place ships covered (figuring those are the most likely to be used for XC and racing). So, while not complete, the survey should at least be statistically significant.

The survey and results are in the attached spreadsheet. I haven't tried to make it pretty, but I did grab screenshots from the survey in the PDF. Here's the big picture:

- 66 glider owners responded.
- 2/3 of those claim to "regularly" fly XC (more than 50KM from the home field). I thought that was a pleasant surprise; I would've figured half or less. We've been working for at least 15 years in Region 2 to drive participation in the OLC and local contests, so maybe that's having some impact.
- About half claim to participate in local/online contests (OLC and the Governor's Cup)
- Almost the same number claim to have particpated in an SSA Sanctioned contest in the last 3 years. That was surprising... half the people who own a glider in our area say they flew a contest. I did a little cross checking and the ranking list, and those numbers seem to be plausible. I suspect that's better than in many other regions.
- When I tried to get at the "why you don't participate" reasons, the results were fairly scattered. If you look at only the "Top 3 Reasons" (i.e. those that were ranked as the 1st, 2nd, or 3rd roadblock), it was in order:
* Time
* Something Else
* Rainouts

The "Something Else" was set up to let folks give their thoughts/concerns, so the answers are all over the map. The results are similar if you look at only the Top 2 reasons. The something else freeform responses are included in the spreadsheet.

My takeaway here is that there's not some silver bullet that would suddenly increase particpation. HOWEVER, it does suggest that rules/fairness/competition concerns that tend to occupy the minds of the hardcore racing pilot are (not surprisingly) not nearly as important to the fence sitters. IF we're serious about increasing participation (and if that's the charter of the Rules Committee or the SRA or some other interested group), the lessons seem to be:

- Test out more long-weekend races or other formats that minimize having to take long vacations.
- Create a structure that would allow newbies and folks with families to feel comfortable (e.g. the Mifflin beginner's contests, Caesar Creek XC and Racing Camp, etc.)
- Create a more structured marketing and awareness campaign targeted at the potential competitors. For instance, I think a list comprising pilots who ARE on the OLC list with some reasonable number of points (say 750 or more) and are NOT on the SSA Ranking List would be a great place to start using publicly available data.

Enjoy. This gave me something to do on a very cold November day!

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

Along this line, and only in region 2 AFAIK.....there were "little guys meets". These were run on 2 successive weekends (no vacation time) and were broken into silver and gold classes.
I believe they were handicapped in both classes, did the full "regional contest routine" (pilots meetings, tasking, turnpoints, final reporting, everything) EXCEPT it was not a sanctioned contest so no points on the line.
The dividing line was basically level of SSA badge until you "overflew the silver class" and were bumped into the gold class.
So yes, a glass gold pilot may be up against Ron Schwartz in his 1-26, Ron may very well win a day!

This was a good way to get started, I know, that was my first couple "contests". I believe P3 and others in the area did the same.
This was waaaayyyyyyy before "rookie camps" as run in some locations now.

I think both have a place as a starter to contests.
Part of it is, when you may not fly on a local given day, a "contest" means, "go fly, do your best".

I know several at our club (WH and others) were brought up with this mindset. While I have not flown much recently, I used to drag peeps out on a lot of days just to "go somewhere" as well as Hank and others.
Heck, sometimes I went "blasting off" in our 1-26 (sn002) prompting glass guys to follow. Figured my performance handicap would make others feel better following in a 30-40:1 ship compared to the "light wing floater".

I have no good answer to elevating contest participation.
I know there was a time that for me, work travel, family stuff (2 growing kids), etc. made it hard to go to contests.
Since then, lack of currency (my past comment that our "rule" was 40+Hrs in that ship, that season before contest day 1) was sorely tested.
Frankly, I don't do 40hrs a season now......hope to change that.

Just sorta watching to see where peeps are going with this, adding comments as I think fits.

Carry on.

[[email protected]]

Seems there are good ideas ...... and the only thing you know is "if you do the same thing you will get the same result"

What is to stop any CD from making a Hard Deck at any Regional (maybe without penalties to begin with, just verbal flogging) - see if it draws people or if the pilots like it - was it safer.

Why must we buy it when we can rent it first. Seems to me Regional s is we need to experiment more.

Rules are what competion is all about - imagine a chess game where you move any piece how ever you feel - it is about optimizing performance within the constraint of the Rules - without Rules, you have an outing not a contest.

WH

[[email protected]]

What P3 said. Despite the impressive Reg. 2 numbers, most soaring pilots DON'T want to fly contests...for various reasons. No problem, unless they're misinformed about what really goes on at a contest. That's possible; there's still a problem with the nagging rumor that when bad weather puts the whole contest in doubt, the pilot with the lowest cumulative score at that point is offered up as a human sacrifice hoping for sun.

When I hear that a lot of pilots elsewhere mention safety as a big impediment, I suspect some survey bias. Not just "is the need to compromise your safety and incur added risks in contest flying a big reason why you don't do it?" Safety is a concern for all. But it's also a socially acceptable way to decline without worrying about coming across as timid or fearful. I'm not saying everyone who cites safety is being dishonest with him/herself or with others. But competitive gliding is stressful, expensive, time consuming, frustrating, depressing at times, selfish.... I could on (to the point of talking myself out of flying this year!). But you REALLY have to want to do it to overcome all the practical reasons not to. :)

Frankly, if a pilot tried it once and didn't come back because of safety, I would suspect gaggle flying more than anything. You don't encounter that density and intensity outside of competition. The risks of landing out are also perceived negatively by almost everyone no matter your experience.

Yes, competitive soaring has inherent risks. That's not the same as assuming that if we implemented a wholesale hard deck, launch grids around the country would suddenly fill up like free seats at the Super Bowl. Gaggle and landout risks would remain.

Contest pilots I know ARE worried about safety. And potential midairs are high on the list--with good reason. They're (fortunately) rare. But almost all of my near disasters have involved close encounters with other gliders. That's why most contest pilots bought into FLARM.

Just my opinion.

Chip Bearden

[Jonathan St. Cloud]

Perhaps we could get more participation and promote xc soaring by having a few more OLC games type meets. I know this does nothing to pick National Champion but it might help increase the number of people flying and get some inactive members back where they can fly with friends in a low stress environment, stay for the whole meet or just part, weak day and don't want to chance it, don't. Not only do we need more people racing, but we need more people in our sport!

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 2:57:22 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> What P3 said. Despite the impressive Reg. 2 numbers, most soaring pilots DON'T want to fly contests...for various reasons. No problem, unless they're misinformed about what really goes on at a contest. That's possible; there's still a problem with the nagging rumor that when bad weather puts the whole contest in doubt, the pilot with the lowest cumulative score at that point is offered up as a human sacrifice hoping for sun.
>
> When I hear that a lot of pilots elsewhere mention safety as a big impediment, I suspect some survey bias. Not just "is the need to compromise your safety and incur added risks in contest flying a big reason why you don't do it?" Safety is a concern for all. But it's also a socially acceptable way to decline without worrying about coming across as timid or fearful. I'm not saying everyone who cites safety is being dishonest with him/herself or with others. But competitive gliding is stressful, expensive, time consuming, frustrating, depressing at times, selfish.... I could on (to the point of talking myself out of flying this year!). But you REALLY have to want to do it to overcome all the practical reasons not to. :)
>
> Frankly, if a pilot tried it once and didn't come back because of safety, I would suspect gaggle flying more than anything. You don't encounter that density and intensity outside of competition. The risks of landing out are also perceived negatively by almost everyone no matter your experience.
>
> Yes, competitive soaring has inherent risks. That's not the same as assuming that if we implemented a wholesale hard deck, launch grids around the country would suddenly fill up like free seats at the Super Bowl. Gaggle and landout risks would remain.
>
> Contest pilots I know ARE worried about safety. And potential midairs are high on the list--with good reason. They're (fortunately) rare. But almost all of my near disasters have involved close encounters with other gliders.. That's why most contest pilots bought into FLARM.
>
> Just my opinion.
>
> Chip Bearden

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 1:23:17 PM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
<snip>
> My takeaway here is that there's not some silver bullet that would suddenly increase particpation. HOWEVER, it does suggest that rules/fairness/competition concerns that tend to occupy the minds of the hardcore racing pilot are (not surprisingly) not nearly as important to the fence sitters. IF we're serious about increasing participation (and if that's the charter of the Rules Committee or the SRA or some other interested group), the lessons seem to be:
>
> - Test out more long-weekend races or other formats that minimize having to take long vacations.
> - Create a structure that would allow newbies and folks with families to feel comfortable (e.g. the Mifflin beginner's contests, Caesar Creek XC and Racing Camp, etc.)
> - Create a more structured marketing and awareness campaign targeted at the potential competitors. For instance, I think a list comprising pilots who ARE on the OLC list with some reasonable number of points (say 750 or more) and are NOT on the SSA Ranking List would be a great place to start using publicly available data.
>

A little data goes a long way.

Some additional food for thought.

Of the 450-odd pilots on the Pilot Ranking List (having flown at least one contest in the past three years):

- 40% flew only one contest in three years
- 20% flew two contests
- 20% flew an average of one contest per year
- 20% flew an average of 2.25 contests per year

That means 112 pilots represent 50% of the contest entries and 224 pilots represent three-quarters of the contest entries. That's pretty concentrated.

Over the past dozen years:
- The number of pilots on the PRL has fallen by an average of 2.6% per year, or twelve pilots per year
- The number of contest entries per year had fallen by 3.5% per year, or 15 entries

I'd guess that there are another couple hundred who are still active but haven't competed in the past three years. I'd be curious to compare that list to the active OLC list and de-dupe it to see who are the obvious candidates and whether there is a racing value proposition that might appeal.

A few years ago, the RC invited local OLC pilots gather one evening during the RC meeting. The anecdotal evidence is that the most active OLC pilots decline to race for reasons that seem quite different from Erik's survey, so I for one would be interested in learning more form a broader group of OLC (or other XC) pilots.

Another datapoint is that we saw pretty good uptake in pilots flying the daily racing task at the last Nephi OLC event. I think some of this is that there was only daily, rather than cumulative, scoring so pilots didn't feel pressure to fly every day (or submit their scores even if they did).

I'd also be very interested to see a mixed Regional/OLC event - more participants would certainly help organizer economics and it's a good opportunity for neophytes to "ride along" with racers.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[[email protected]]

"A few years ago, the RC invited local OLC pilots gather one evening during the RC meeting. The anecdotal evidence is that the most active OLC pilots decline to race for reasons that seem quite different from Erik's survey, so I for one would be interested in learning more form a broader group of OLC (or other XC) pilots. "

I have raced in several disciplines over the years- Professional drag racing in Funny Cars, roadracing motorcycles and sports cars, motocross and dirt track etc., and the one thing these had in common was that the course is the same for all competitors. And you can actually SEE it!

When I transitioned into aviation sports (hang gliding and now soaring), I discovered to my delight (and sometimes dismay) that the course simply isn't the same for everybody and changing conditions are far more likely to reward (or punish) choices that are made if you do not or cannot recognize these changes.

Organized soaring competitions are based on guessing on a set of weather conditions and setting a task early in the day, and then coming up with a valid task for competition. I am basically flying for fun, and the tasks that are set in advance often conflict with my desire to just fly and enjoy myself. A task that takes me into areas of mediocre conditions, when obviously better flying is to be had in another direction is what I like about flying OLC vs. organized competition.

If a cloudstreet sets up 90 degrees to what would have been a task leg, I would prefer to take the opportunity to extend my flight, as opposed to following the assigned course. I often tell people who ask why I don't enter competitions that I am fully capable of making all the wrong decisions I need without the help of a Competition Director or Task Committee.

Don't get me wrong; I have the highest respect for competition pilots and the serious racing decisions they need to make to participate in a very demanding environment. It just isn't my cup of tea (or mug of beer.)

OLC competition allows me and even encourages me to push my X-C skills beyond merely staying aloft and avoiding yardwork. I have flown over 80,000 km in the last six years, and the OLC was the driving impetus. I enjoy my flying, but have no particular desire to enter into organized soaring competition, as I do not enjoy the sometimes intense personalities (although many other personalities are a great load of fun!). The lack of freedom in making my own decisions (good or bad) also plays a major role in my decision to avoid contest flying.

And finally, I think that the three hour tasks are basically a waste of the day, when soaring conditions can last eight hours or more in the summer. Milling around for an hour waiting for the gate to open and then hauling ass for three hours, leaving several hours of prime conditions unused seems, well, maybe not criminal, but certainly irresponsible when yardwork looms over your head.

Then again, at least organized competition forces you to leave your yardwork behind because of the need to travel to the contest site. ("Honey, I would just love to de-thatch the lawn and spread a truckload of fertilizer with you, but I have already sent in the entry fee for the Region 77 Qualifier, Beer Drinking Contest and Barbecue Evaluation Seminar. You wouldn't want me to miss out on that, would you? Oh, wait! Maybe you should come along! It will be fun!)

[[email protected]]

Andy,

Thank you for sharing that. In reviewing the SSA's financial report i noticed a downward trend in entry fee revenue. This explains it. Any thought on how to make olc pilots take up flying in contests?

R6N is advertising its regional (running concurrent with the US Juniors Camp Contest) as a "rookie camp" but i suspect the hard part is getting the message out to potential first-timers. We're sending posters out to all nearby soaring clubs but its hard to find new blood. I'm open to any suggestions..

- Chris Schrader

[Michael Opitz]

At 18:58 31 January 2018, Jim White wrote:
>At 02:15 31 January 2018, Michael Opitz wrote:
>>
>>George Moffat and the sailing crowd have always proposed to
drop
>>both the individual pilot's best and worst days because "that's
what
>>they do in sailing". You might be able to do that in a Grand Prix
>>format where each day counts the same. I don't see how we can
do
>>that as long as we have devalued days. A pilot can be a day
winner
>>on a very difficult 600 point day, and be forced to drop his
>>day win because all of the other contest days weren't devalued,
>>even though he had another day where he only got 850 points
>>compared to that other day's winner?
>>
>>Please tell me how you propose to make that fair?? I can't see it
>>being done without a total overhaul of the scoring system.
>>
>>RO
>>
>I have never understood why a difficult day gets devalued. Seems
to me tha
>difficult days are a better test of skill.
>
>Devaluation also has the effect that CDs try to set 3 hour tasks.
Why i
>the window is short?
>
>Not devaluing days would remove some complexity and IMO
improv
>competitions!
>
>Jim
>
I don't know what your devaluation rules are in the UK, but in the
USA, the rules say that the daily task should be set so that the
winner should take at least 3 hours to complete it (as a fair test of
nationals level soaring skills). There are times when the weather
window will not allow the total time needed to launch and fly a
three hour task, but a two hour (or 1.5 hour) task would be "in the
cards" in order to get a valid contest day in the books, and to
possibly preclude a "rained out contest" (due to not having the
required amount of contest days). Instead of counting the
shortened days equally to the full length days, they are devalued
proportionately. Otherwise a 5 minute error could cost a pilot
twice as many points on a 1.5 hour task compared to a 3 hour
task. As the task time decreases, the points per minute goes
up quite quickly unless devaluation kicks in.

Other devaluation rules pertaining to a low percentage of task
finishers due to an over-call or weather related luck factors have
been added as well. If there is a speed task that nobody is able to
finish (in the USA rules), the winner on a day like this would not
be eligible for any speed points - only distance points - and thus
would only be eligible for a maximum of ~600 points (if landing
just short of the actual finish line - arc, point, goal, etc). At one
time there were scoring systems (FAI rules?) for when there were
no finishers, the day would revert to full value based on distance
achieved, as it was seen as a fair distance task at that point. I
don't know if the FAI still has that in place or not.

I am not on the USA rules committee, so I'm sure there are
others that are much more familiar with the reasons why certain
rules were written the way they were. Those people with a
better understanding can add to and correct any errors that I
have made here.

RO

[CindyB[_2_]]

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:24:17 PM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:49:35 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > Just an idea.
>
> Here's mine: Shame the offender at the pilots' meeting. Display the offending bit of the flight trace and give the offender the "opportunity" to give the day's safety talk.
>

Ooooo, I like it. We did something similar in Reg 12 for our Spring safety seminars. From the previous season's whoopsies, I culled a list of willing presenters to give the "Scared Witless" vignettes.
It was an audio version of "I Learned About Flying From That". Obviously they had to be survivors, and Willing. It was a very popular format - five minutes and done.

> In the case of egregious or repeat violations of good sense, get the safety committee together and discuss a points based penalty (or DQ if it comes to that). I loved Cindy's story about OF, sounds like that they got that one right on the money.

Thanks, Evan and others. I make the stories personal to make them pertinent.

I will occasionally protect the guilty. One pilot told his 'Witless' story, proudly, smilingly. When we got to the part where - 'how would you change this to avoid the whole scenario?' -- there was a blank stare by the pilot.
'Uuuh, I didn't crash, it was a great job.'
The audience sneaked a bunch of quick looks at me.... and the show went on.
It was a GREAT teaching moment, that I had Not Scripted. Even ~8 months later,
he didn't know what was off-the-page wrong about his thinking.

With a savvy CD/CM, the public replay could be a useful disincentive. And a delightful relief from, " I got high, ran fast; got low, slowed up; went the other way and got home first" talks.

> Of course, my interest here has more to do with actual contest safety, less with who gets to go to WGC.
>

Consensus on what's unacceptable behavior. That's the trick.....
and I too know many local pilots who avoid racing due to 'crazy behavior'.
A group of pilots, that's fun.
Sometimes we call it a race/contest.

Best wishes,
Cindy B

[krasw]

maanantai 29. tammikuuta 2018 23.24.17 UTC+2 Tango Eight kirjoitti:
> Here's mine: Shame the offender at the pilots' meeting.
>
> best,
> Evan Ludeman / T8

I believe this has been done at least once in some international event and it works. Pilots could write the competition number of pilot flying dangerously to a blackboard at briefing room wall (anonymously, if they wish). After walking in the offending pilot would see his competition number written, sometimes by several pilots, and next day he would fly like a gentleman. You wouldn't believe what social pressure can achieve.

[[email protected]]

Could do that for excessive leeching too.

[Clay[_5_]]

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:00:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Opitz wrote:
> At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:

> The 1958 WGC Open Class was won on a day like that, except that
> E.G. Haase (as relayed personally to me) made a string of very
> low saves (albeit all over very landable terrain) and was thus able
> to tiptoe his way to victory that day. He was then able to defend his
> lead until the contest ended. It was a brilliant flight, not luck. Some
> pilots are just better at that kind of flying than others. For example,
> in Belgium, they have a maximum altitude of 3,000' due to
> controlled airspace over the entire country. Those guys fly low a
> lot.

Did he mention his thermal detector?! This is pretty good stuff, especially the last two paragraphs. The good ole days
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1958/1958-1-%20-%200010.PDF

[ND]

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> Seems there are good ideas ...... and the only thing you know is "if you do the same thing you will get the same result"
>
> What is to stop any CD from making a Hard Deck at any Regional (maybe without penalties to begin with, just verbal flogging) - see if it draws people or if the pilots like it - was it safer.
>
> Why must we buy it when we can rent it first. Seems to me Regional s is we need to experiment more.
>
> Rules are what competion is all about - imagine a chess game where you move any piece how ever you feel - it is about optimizing performance within the constraint of the Rules - without Rules, you have an outing not a contest.
>
> WH

I really believe that imposing a hard deck will not draw anyone new to contests. I think they simply don't care about it. if they want to compete, the absence of a hard deck isn't what's holding them back. if we are talking about a pilot who doesn't want to compete, there's not one single one out there who abstains from competition because there's no hard deck. no, i don't think a hard deck and contest participation have any correlation. The effect will be this: Imposing oa hard deck will **** off a bunch of current active competitors. they won't stop racing because of it though.

what would the hard deck be? I think they tossed out the number 500 AGL. i am wholeheartedly against the hard deck idea, but 500 agl seems like a reasonable number. i maintain that just because there's a hard deck, it won't stop people from circling below it if they think they have a fighting chance to stay out of a field. over an airport, maybe it's a different story. so if the hard deck doesn't prevent bad behavior, what does it do? it punishes people. punishments are designed to dissuade people from doing "bad" things. but this won't stop people from circling below the hard deck, so why instate it?

I want to get one more thing out there:

Out of all the hours of contest flights flown each year, how many minutes of circling is really done below the proposed hard deck?

Out of all the people who get below 500 feet agl in contests each year, how many of them attempted to circle? i'm going to stick my neck out an say extremely few.

See, what i'm saying is that you are chasing a miniscule figure with the hard deck idea. You'll say, "if it saves even one life it's worth it". you're not wrong. i agree that saving lives is important. i think it would be much more effective to police it by confronting the individuals who seem to be the big offenders.

I'm going to say this. and before i do i want to remind everyone that i'm a new dad, and i'm not into taking unnecessary risks. i'm careful. nothing ****es me off more than seeing someone get onto the airport and not get speed points, UNLESS their approach to the field was actually scary. equally, if someone was able to make a low save and make it home, but just barely busted the hard deck in doing so, can you imagine? they made it around in my eyes. and yes i acknowledge the fact that there was some risk there. but if the pilot has the skills and is willing to accept the risk, i have no problem with it. if i see john seymour (for example, although maybe he wouldn't) circling at 480 feet at a flatland site, over a great field, i've got nothing to say about it. now if a 19 year old flying his first nationals did the same thing.... i have a problem, hard deck or not.

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 3:14:06 AM UTC-5, CindyB wrote:

> I too know many local pilots who avoid racing due to 'crazy behavior'.

Anyone who thinks crazy behavior is in any way necessary and/or advantageous in competition flying simply hasn't studied this problem... at least this is how it looks to me. Maybe BB or someone else disagrees with me and has the data to convince me otherwise (in that case, contact me offline please, I am genuinely interested).

Consistent efficiency and *insight* is what wins contests. Wish I had a little more of that at times :-).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013_Competition_Safety_Report.pdf

Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.

The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.

Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.

So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.

And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.

(That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)

John Cochrane

[Michael Opitz]

At 14:58 01 February 2018, Clay wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:00:07 PM UTC-5, Michael
Opitz wrote:
>> At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:
>
>> The 1958 WGC Open Class was won on a day like that, except
that
>> E.G. Haase (as relayed personally to me) made a string of very
>> low saves (albeit all over very landable terrain) and was thus
able
>> to tiptoe his way to victory that day. He was then able to defend
his
>> lead until the contest ended. It was a brilliant flight, not luck.
Some
>> pilots are just better at that kind of flying than others. For
example,
>> in Belgium, they have a maximum altitude of 3,000' due to
>> controlled airspace over the entire country. Those guys fly low a
>> lot.
>
>Did he mention his thermal detector?! This is pretty good stuff,
>especially the last two paragraphs. The good ole days
>https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightPDFArchive/1958/1958-1-%20-
%200010.PDF
>
Thanks for the link. No, E.G. never mentioned the thermal detector
to me. He talked very extensively about the HKS-3, and what they
did to tune it though. They used wing warping as opposed to
ailerons in order to minimize interference drag. The canopy
didn't have a vent or window so as not to disturb the air in front
of the wing root. He had a vent air exhaust in the tail-cone, but
could only get ventilation air through a scoop in the wheel well
when the gear was down. So, he generally thermalled with the
gear down for cockpit ventilation, and cruised with the gear
retracted. He said that everyone thought he was crazy to
always thermal with the gear down, but that was his only access
to fresh air as the rest of the glider was sealed up so tightly. He
told me to always have a vent air extraction exit that was 50%
larger than the inlet vent so as to prevent positive pressure
buildup inside the glider.

That was back in 1972 when I was 21. I stayed at his house as
a guest for ~a week, and flew with him and his club in Vogtareuth
Germany. I even became the first person other that E.G.
or his partner allowed to fly his ASK-14 motorglider. I think I
logged about ~20 hours flying in the German Alps with it. Those
were very good times for me...

RO

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

I'm sorry to disagree. Occasional very low saves, flying over dicey terrain, flying through thunderstorms, marginal final glides to whatever the rules allow, are part of winning contests too. Yes, this will not turn a mediocre pilot into a winner. But winners have to take whatever calculated risks the rules allow. Stories on all of these abound.

John Cochrane

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 9:18:45 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013_Competition_Safety_Report.pdf
>
> Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.
>
> The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.
>
> Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.
>
> So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.
>
> And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.
>
> (That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)
>
> John Cochrane

Your asking us to support your views after we read your below disclaimer?

Disclaimers
This is a summary of information available to the rules committee as of the November meeting,
collected for the purpose of examining rules and procedures in the interests of improving future
contest safety. This is not the NTSB, and we have not done any independent accident
investigation. Errors are likely. This is a report from the safety subcommittee (me) to the rules
committee. Recommendations are mine only, and not endorsed by the RC.


Then John, you state above "Errors are likely" and then with your below statement, I question why it's even being discussed?

"""Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet."""

If your wishing support( which I would heartily do) please show us why it's needed with reasonable, well-founded facts but please not with unreasonable and illogical statements which are tainted with radical extremist views. :>)).

Best. Tom #711.

[jfitch]

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 8:18:45 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013_Competition_Safety_Report.pdf
>
> Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.
>
> The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.
>
> Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.
>
> So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.
>
> And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.
>
> (That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)
>
> John Cochrane

I agree with John, and add that I cannot understand the distinction between existing airspace rules and a 500' exclusion. Yes it is one more. Is one more bad and one less good? Then let's also get rid of altitude, finish line heights, cloud restrictions, SUA restrictions. Like an un-drug tested Olympics. See just how crazy people will get. I'm guessing that a number of people in this discussion would like to see that.

[Tango Eight]

Stories are often embellished. Flight logs not so much.

Flight logs of day/contest winners doing insanely stupid things and getting away with it on a regular basis would be more relevant to this discussion than also-rans making ill advised attempts to stay away from the ground. The stories ought to give you a good idea of where to start looking.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Are you reading the parallel discussion on SGP and what it takes to win there? Sadly the crash records don't lie, and we have lost many top pilots as well as many beginners over the years.
John cochrane

[Tango Eight]

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 3:04:10 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Are you reading the parallel discussion on SGP and what it takes to win there? Sadly the crash records don't lie, and we have lost many top pilots as well as many beginners over the years.
> John cochrane

This is directed to me?

Yes, of course I'm aware of all this. It's one reason I view this discussion as a little distracting from potentially larger issues. Your proposed rule is quite specific. I am simply asking: where are all the logs of the guys tempting fate below 500 agl, then going on to win? Your rule would have no discernible effect on anyone who does end up landing and it doesn't have an enormous effect on the guy in 9th place who gets back up after a very low save.

best,
Evan

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 11:18:45 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
> http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013_Competition_Safety_Report.pdf

Can you point to the specific examples in this report that would be affected by your proposed "rule"? It's possible I'm not reading the report correctly, but I'm having a hard time finding the examples (at least in this report) that correlate to the "hard charging guy determined to climb out from 400 feet".

P3

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

T8: The case for hard deck is not directed at winners, it's directed at everyone. The two examples -- two of many -- show pilots doing desperate low altitude things, pretty clearly not giving up and landing anywhere near soon enough. Were they thinking about points? I don't know, but their flight tracks sure look like it.
John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

as one of the guys in the report #7 - I believe I had given up on the task completely - way before the crash. I know for sure, points were not in my mind at all, promise.

I am not opposed the the Hard Deck - it will have no affect on my flying (my own is higher than 500 ft). I am just not so sure that most low thermaling happens because a person feels like they can continue lower and still be in the race.

We get together once a week here in NYC for Beer Night - "Hard Deck" was the topic of last evening - there wasn't much consensus but there was allot of conversation.

It seems to fall into 2 camps ... "Big Brother" vs "I am just keeping you safe from your own temptations" - both seem pretty reasonable.

An interesting point was "the hard deck would make me make decisions higher then I normally do" - at least for him, he thought it would help - even make him faster.

Feeling the obligation to explain yourself to your peers/mentor/family....... that's motivation enough for me - been there done that - goig to try not to do that nay more.

WH

[[email protected]]

This has been an interesting and pretty civil discussion involving primarily two polar opposites, personal freedoms and restrictive structures. Thanks to everyone who has posted here without flares that normally result when dealing with such a flammable topic lol.

One aspect I would like to introduce to the discussion is one of the elemental nature of racing or record setting. Racing/record setting are by nature games of managing risk for maximum achievement. The very fact that there are those who want to attempt to "manage" the risk of others flies in the face of the very nature of the sport. Are some "guidlines/disincentives" needed? Yes, but I feel we are trending into the realm of trying to micromanage the sport.

Second, historically, races are not only won by those flying the perfect flight, with decisions made that minimized risk and maximized speed, but ALSO days are won by those same pilots who chose or had to take a major calculated risk to win the day. Those who are trying to eliminate that side of the contest also eliminate a whole grouping of pilots who have developed the skill set for that method of fast flying. This new rule schema/trend that is developing, in essence, penalizes guys like moffat, reichman scott and streideck who knew how to fly very aggressively. Karl has commented on this thread saying basically the same thing. Do all of you "new generation" fliers who want a more regulated form of racing think his opinion is unqualified or out of touch with what sailplane racing is all about? I think many of you actually do and think that form of flying has no place in todays game.

I think much of this argument has been caused by the charactoristics of modern sailplanes themselves. Low saves, landing out, higher risk decisions were normative for racing in the older generation of competition. If you couldn't fly that way, at times, then you could not be competative. Today, performance is such that the game is more a game of micro decisions, not macro ones. When guys today are forced into macro decisions like a low save or even a land out for that matter, they are ill equiped to handle them. That's the true problem underlying a majority of the racing accidents today. Expanded rules implimentation does'nt really address the that fundamental problem but it definitely does redefine the nature of the race.

[[email protected]]

If we can control the usable airspace, let's make racing extremely fair so everyone uses the same air. We can have the CD create airspace "hallways" a few miles wide which connect each TP. Since we can detect where everyone is we can legislate the direction of travel within each hallway to avoid the mayhem of two way traffic.

Just because we have the ability to do something doesn't mean we have to do it. Safety rules should not be put into place to keep someone from killing themselves. Safety rules should prevent someone from taking others with them.

Someone augurs in because of "x" it really sucks. If the same "x" takes an innocent pilot or someone on the ground with them it is tragic.

[[email protected]]

"Today, performance"

It would be interesting to know if the fatality rate was the same when 1-26 were to only racing machines.

Our gliders have evolved allot in the past 5 decades - I know as technology advanced in a bunch of high speed sports ( cars, bobsleds, skiing....) the playing field and/or the rules had to adapt.

I am a libertarian at heart, except when my kids play a sport - then I hope the adults made the rules so the kids can play safe :)

I do not know the answer.

WH

[[email protected]]

>
> Second, historically, races are not only won by those flying the perfect flight, with decisions made that minimized risk and maximized speed, but ALSO days are won by those same pilots who chose or had to take a major calculated risk to win the day.

Still not much of a racing pilot here, so take with grain of salt.

I wonder if this mixes two kinds of risk.

Strategic risk like 'I think there's lift in that blue hole. If it works I'm way ahead. If it doesn't I have a save my butt plan so I still get to try tomorrow'.

versus
Safety risk is like the above except if it doesn't work hopefully I'll only break the ship.

As a newbee, I am surrounded by really good pilots that do amazing things.
My goal is just to finish safely, learn, and enjoy. For me, it would be neat to hear a safety debrief on what sort of 'get to fly tomorrow plan' the person who just did one of those amazing things had.

I think that says no new rule, just a little peer pressure and maybe a learning experience.

No another note, the SUA's use the existing airspace feature in the panel. It is my understanding that this only supports vertical sides for airspace sections. If so, then I suspect to do much more that a few special cases, the feature would have to be modified to support sloping sides to better follow terrain with a reasonable number of airspace volumes?

[Michael Opitz]

At 10:32 02 February 2018, wrote:
>This has been an interesting and pretty civil discussion involving
>primaril=
>y two polar opposites, personal freedoms and restrictive
structures.
>Thanks=
> to everyone who has posted here without flares that normally
result when
>d=
>ealing with such a flammable topic lol.
>
>One aspect I would like to introduce to the discussion is one of the
>elemen=
>tal nature of racing or record setting. Racing/record setting are by
>nature=
> games of managing risk for maximum achievement. The very fact
that there
>a=
>re those who want to attempt to "manage" the risk of others flies
in the
>fa=
>ce of the very nature of the sport. Are some
"guidlines/disincentives"
>need=
>ed? Yes, but I feel we are trending into the realm of trying to
>micromanage=
> the sport.
>
>Second, historically, races are not only won by those flying the
perfect
>fl=
>ight, with decisions made that minimized risk and maximized
speed, but
>ALSO=
> days are won by those same pilots who chose or had to take a
major
>calcula=
>ted risk to win the day. Those who are trying to eliminate that side
of
>the=
> contest also eliminate a whole grouping of pilots who have
developed the
>s=
>kill set for that method of fast flying. This new rule schema/trend
that
>is=
> developing, in essence, penalizes guys like moffat, reichman scott
and
>str=
>eideck who knew how to fly very aggressively. Karl has commented
on this
>th=
>read saying basically the same thing. Do all of you "new
generation"
>fliers=
> who want a more regulated form of racing think his opinion is
unqualified
>=
>or out of touch with what sailplane racing is all about? I think
many of
>yo=
>u actually do and think that form of flying has no place in todays
game.
>
>I think much of this argument has been caused by the
charactoristics of
>mod=
>ern sailplanes themselves. Low saves, landing out, higher risk
decisions
>we=
>re normative for racing in the older generation of competition. If
you
>coul=
>dn't fly that way, at times, then you could not be competative.
Today,
>perf=
>ormance is such that the game is more a game of micro decisions,
not macro
>=
>ones. When guys today are forced into macro decisions like a low
save or
>ev=
>en a land out for that matter, they are ill equiped to handle them.
That's
>=
>the true problem underlying a majority of the racing accidents
today.
>Expan=
>ded rules implimentation does'nt really address the that
fundamental
>proble=
>m but it definitely does redefine the nature of the race.
>
I think that's a pretty good summary of the issue. You can add
Ray Gimmey to the above list. He won the 1988 STD Nats in
Minden (actually, Klaus Holighaus won, but he was a guest) due
to a very low save on a difficult day. Ray told me that he had
already rolled out on final to land on a dirt road when he hit an
8 Kt thermal and wrapped into it to get home. Ray told me that
he was down around ~100' IIRC.

Yes, Evan, there were no recorders back then, so it is a story, but
I have known Ray to be a pretty "straight shooter" so I have no
reason to doubt his version of this. He told me right after we
landed at Minden.

Here is another story. My father told me how they did it in German
glider contests before WWII. If they got low, they picked a good
plowed field to land in which might also be a thermal generator.
Then, they would dive down and make a high speed low pass over
the field in order to try and break loose/trigger a building thermal
bubble. After the low pass, they would pull up (similar to one of
our high speed flying finishes) and make a circle or two. If the
maneuver was successful, the bubble would have been broken
loose and they would climb away. If not successful, they would
land, as they had already given the field a "close" inspection. I
have not yet tried this method myself, and I don't know if I ever
will, but it is/was a skill set that pilots have used in the past, so
it is probably relevant to this discussion because if one dives
down from above 300', one would violate the proposed "hard
deck" even if one were to zoom back up above it....

RO

[jfitch]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 2:32:30 AM UTC-8, wrote:
> Second, historically, races are not only won by those flying the perfect flight, with decisions made that minimized risk and maximized speed, but ALSO days are won by those same pilots who chose or had to take a major calculated risk to win the day. Those who are trying to eliminate that side of the contest also eliminate a whole grouping of pilots who have developed the skill set for that method of fast flying.>
>

This summarizes the two poles of the argument. Those who believe taking 'major calculated' risks should continue to be part of the game, and those who would like to minimize those as a means to win.

I do not believe though, that "Those who are trying to eliminate that side of the contest also eliminate a whole grouping of pilots who have developed the skill set for that method of fast flying." It does not eliminate those pilots from competition, only to the extent that their success was born exclusively on taking those major calculated risks. The really good pilots are going to win anyway - even with airspace restricted to someone's idea of safe. There are a very few who would do less well, because major risk taking is a large part of their success. Is the success rate of taking major calculated risks what we are trying to measure in soaring competition? Should taking major calculated risks be weighted with, or above, picking thermals, centering them quickly, and managing energy in-between?

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:45:06 AM UTC-5, Michael Opitz wrote:

> I think that's a pretty good summary of the issue. You can add
> Ray Gimmey to the above list. He won the 1988 STD Nats in
> Minden (actually, Klaus Holighaus won, but he was a guest) due
> to a very low save on a difficult day. Ray told me that he had
> already rolled out on final to land on a dirt road when he hit an
> 8 Kt thermal and wrapped into it to get home. Ray told me that
> he was down around ~100' IIRC.
>
> Yes, Evan, there were no recorders back then, so it is a story, but
> I have known Ray to be a pretty "straight shooter" so I have no
> reason to doubt his version of this. He told me right after we
> landed at Minden.
>
> Here is another story. My father told me how they did it in German
> glider contests before WWII. If they got low, they picked a good
> plowed field to land in which might also be a thermal generator.
> Then, they would dive down and make a high speed low pass over
> the field in order to try and break loose/trigger a building thermal
> bubble. After the low pass, they would pull up (similar to one of
> our high speed flying finishes) and make a circle or two. If the
> maneuver was successful, the bubble would have been broken
> loose and they would climb away. If not successful, they would
> land, as they had already given the field a "close" inspection. I
> have not yet tried this method myself, and I don't know if I ever
> will, but it is/was a skill set that pilots have used in the past, so
> it is probably relevant to this discussion because if one dives
> down from above 300', one would violate the proposed "hard
> deck" even if one were to zoom back up above it....
>
> RO

Awesome stories! Thanks Mike.

Those are obviously very different scenarios from the ones John has given as examples. Both could easily lead to fatal results even in skilled hands with just a smidge of bad luck. Was Ray's save a reasonable thing to do in the circumstances (it's easiest just to say "NO!")? What I know for sure is that your odds absolutely suck if you fly into sink at 100 agl in a 45 degree bank and 50 kts.

I can see this issue both ways... which is why I'm asking for data. Absent tangible evidence of people doing really dangerous stuff motivated by point

When I see spaghetti traces like the ones in John's report, I don't think "this guy's trying to stay in the contest", I think "this guy is desperately afraid to land for some reason", e.g. bad field, inexperience, borrowed or shared glider, whatever. Helpful to ask the pilot (thanks WH).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Clay[_5_]]

I looked at all of the 15M podium finishers flight traces (day or overall contest depending on which was made available), going back to 2006. The only really low save I found was Rick Walters on Day 2 at Montague in 2006. His low point appeared to be 567 ft AGL near town over the low ground. Garner came very close at Mifflin in 2012, but his low point of 470 ft AGL was over a 1000 ft MSL ridge. BB got down to 1050 AGL at Hobbs in 2013. P7 down to 958 AGL in Elmira 2015. Retting down to 1213 in Cordele last year. That's the extent of the heroics I could find in 15M and Standard when co-located with 15M. There was a fair amount of rock polishing in the mountain contests. Enough to have me thinking twice about ever doing one! But I think the message is clear: you can do very, very well in soaring without ever having to thermal at 500 ft. Not sure what anyone was doing many decades ago in gliders with ? wing loading is relevant today, but now I'm talking over my pay grade.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 7:32:47 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> Our gliders have evolved allot in the past 5 decades - I know as technology advanced in a bunch of high speed sports ( cars, bobsleds, skiing....) the playing field and/or the rules had to adapt.


Today's gliders are safer. They handle better with more benign stall/spin characteristics (though most will still spin if provoked). Gliders in general and Schleicher gliders specifically are safer in crashes due to stronger materials and newer impact-absorbing cockpits and landing gears (they won't save you if you go straight in, of course). DG has done some good work on safety and I think all the glider manufacturers are paying much more attention to it.

We're carrying more safety equipment: e.g., ELTs, FLARMs. We're more aware of the hazards of dehydration, medications, etc. We're flying fewer hours (shorter tasks) and with more sleep (fewer, often no long retrieves).

I'd say that audio variometers have contributed to safety because they help keep our heads out of the cockpits but the proliferation of electronics in our panels has pushed us in the wrong direction, even allowing for the benefit of not having to study a Sectional chart closely.

I don't have data on earlier accident and fatality rates but it would be great if someone smart who's inclined that way could analyze it (9B???).

It's a tiny sample but here are the stats for pilots I have been able to recall I knew who were killed in glider crashes, by year:

1979
1980 (2)
1981
1984
1986
1992 (2)
1994
1999 (3 pilots, in two incidents)
2004
2010
2012

I wouldn't want to draw any real conclusions, not least because these are just pilots I knew/met. And in my early years, I simply hadn't met as many. Plus I don't know how many total pilots and contest days are involved, and not all of these deaths occurred during contest flights. But my sense is that it's not getting worse, and perhaps a bit better.

Chip Bearden

[ND]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:40:04 PM UTC-5, Clay wrote:
> I looked at all of the 15M podium finishers flight traces (day or overall contest depending on which was made available), going back to 2006. The only really low save I found was Rick Walters on Day 2 at Montague in 2006. His low point appeared to be 567 ft AGL near town over the low ground. Garner came very close at Mifflin in 2012, but his low point of 470 ft AGL was over a 1000 ft MSL ridge. BB got down to 1050 AGL at Hobbs in 2013. P7 down to 958 AGL in Elmira 2015. Retting down to 1213 in Cordele last year. That's the extent of the heroics I could find in 15M and Standard when co-located with 15M. There was a fair amount of rock polishing in the mountain contests. Enough to have me thinking twice about ever doing one! But I think the message is clear: you can do very, very well in soaring without ever having to thermal at 500 ft. Not sure what anyone was doing many decades ago in gliders with ? wing loading is relevant today, but now I'm talking over my pay grade.

thank you clay! this is basically one of the two things that i'm saying. very few low saves in competition take place below 500 feet. it would be interesting to look at not just the podium, but all competitors. i don't think its a question of just the folks who do well. no one sets out to dive down to 500 feet and find a whopper. the probability of success is low, and the result is usually a very slow speed.

the other thing i'm saying is that imposing a hard deck wont stop someone (like the ray gimmey story) from trying to get away once below the hard deck. so my question is, whats the point?

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 11:26:27 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>
>
> This summarizes the two poles of the argument. Those who believe taking 'major calculated' risks should continue to be part of the game, and those who would like to minimize those as a means to win.
>

Not sure if that's what I'm coming away with. I actually think most/all of us agree that "major" risks (where major = a high likelihood of injury or death) should NOT be part of the game. I certainly feel that way, and that attitude (along with a lack of skill, time, and commitment) have limited me to a few near-podium finishes at Nationals.

My strong feeling is that the accidents BB is ascribing to bad-behavior driven by a quest for points is a complete red herring. Clay's analysis (if proven to be true) along with all I've seen in the accident report seems to support my point of view. While taking a break from sanding gelcoat in the shop last night, 3 of us (with a combined racing experience in excess of 120 years) had a hard time naming even one attempt to climb out below 600 feet, much less 500, 400, or 300.

So the question is - what exactly would a hard deck solve? More importantly, what other unintended behaviors will it drive, and at what cost in complexity of administration etc. My take is that it's a solution looking for the wrong problem to solve.

Erik Mann (P3)
ASG-29

[Tango Eight]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 12:40:04 PM UTC-5, Clay wrote:
> I looked at all of the 15M podium finishers flight traces (day or overall contest depending on which was made available), going back to 2006. The only really low save I found was Rick Walters on Day 2 at Montague in 2006. His low point appeared to be 567 ft AGL near town over the low ground. Garner came very close at Mifflin in 2012, but his low point of 470 ft AGL was over a 1000 ft MSL ridge. BB got down to 1050 AGL at Hobbs in 2013. P7 down to 958 AGL in Elmira 2015. Retting down to 1213 in Cordele last year. That's the extent of the heroics I could find in 15M and Standard when co-located with 15M. There was a fair amount of rock polishing in the mountain contests. Enough to have me thinking twice about ever doing one! But I think the message is clear: you can do very, very well in soaring without ever having to thermal at 500 ft. Not sure what anyone was doing many decades ago in gliders with ? wing loading is relevant today, but now I'm talking over my pay grade.

Thanks Clay, that's an interesting sample.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

[Steve Koerner]

Chip's great stories reminded me of one of my most magnificent experiences in a glider. This was coming back to Crystaire after a long flight decades ago. The sun had set and the gliderport was closed and completely vacated.. I did a long low pass westbound down the length of the runway then pulled up for a right downwind. As I pulled up, right there, were two eagles circling together to the right in a 1 knot end-of-day thermal. I joined the two eagles across that thermal for a few hundred feet of climb before continuing my landing.

Obviously I was quite low when I made those thermalling turns yet I am as sure now as I was then that making those turns was perfectly safe for me and for all other human beings. The air was still -- there was essentially no chance of encountering any degree of sink or turbulence at that particular occasion.

Exactly that will never happen again. But something similar might. I choose liberty please. Pretty please.

I retract all of my previous suggestion about how to do an equivalent of hard deck more simply. I want none of it now after thinking more on the subject. At the same time, I commend BB for bringing forward this thoughtful ideas to keep us safer while I remain skeptical that a hard deck could have more than a miniscule impact on our dismal accident statistics. It's been an interesting discussion.

BB has said: What's the big deal? A hard deck is no different than the 17,500 ceiling that we all have agreed to live with. Well; I, for one, never would have chosen to agree to that. I'm sure I'm not the only racing pilot that routinely gets ****ed off every time I get to 17,400 in a strong thermal and have to break off 500 feet early to accommodate the rules. I don't want another airspace constraint to be ****ed off about. I especially don't want to have to deal with contest airspace issues when I'm at pattern altitude.

There are people here in Arizona that will advocate for red light cameras, for banning cell phone use in cars and for banning citizens from carrying guns. All those safety things get routinely voted down around here. It seems a lot of us humans value liberty over personal safety. It's a DNA thing.

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 2:11:27 PM UTC-5, Papa3 wrote:
> On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 11:26:27 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> >
> >
> > This summarizes the two poles of the argument. Those who believe taking 'major calculated' risks should continue to be part of the game, and those who would like to minimize those as a means to win.
> >
>
> Not sure if that's what I'm coming away with. I actually think most/all of us agree that "major" risks (where major = a high likelihood of injury or death) should NOT be part of the game. I certainly feel that way, and that attitude (along with a lack of skill, time, and commitment) have limited me to a few near-podium finishes at Nationals.
>
> My strong feeling is that the accidents BB is ascribing to bad-behavior driven by a quest for points is a complete red herring. Clay's analysis (if proven to be true) along with all I've seen in the accident report seems to support my point of view. While taking a break from sanding gelcoat in the shop last night, 3 of us (with a combined racing experience in excess of 120 years) had a hard time naming even one attempt to climb out below 600 feet, much less 500, 400, or 300.
>
> So the question is - what exactly would a hard deck solve? More importantly, what other unintended behaviors will it drive, and at what cost in complexity of administration etc. My take is that it's a solution looking for the wrong problem to solve.
>
> Erik Mann (P3)
> ASG-29

Perhaps the unintended consequence is that a guy who is at 800 ft over a good field in the valley makes a run at the ridge to get away from the hard deck...........

WH

[Kiwi User]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2018 11:11:24 -0800, Papa3 wrote:

> So the question is - what exactly would a hard deck solve? More
> importantly, what other unintended behaviors will it drive, and at what
> cost in complexity of administration etc. My take is that it's a
> solution looking for the wrong problem to solve.
>
After reading those accounts of poorly executed field landings I got
curious about what is covered in all phases of the US Bronze badge
curriculum and found that its very similar to what we're taught in the UK
apart from one group of skills which are not included in your Bronze:

- navigation using a 1:500,000 chart (that is similar to a US sectional)
- field selection
- field landing

These are all discussed and then flown with an instructor. You need them
signed off to get the Bronze XC Endorsement but they aren't pass/fail
checks: you fly them until both student and instructor are satisfied with
the student's performance in a TMG: I, like many UK XC pilots, did them
in an SF-25 Scheibe, which has reasonably good airbrakes and, with a bit
of power added, can simulate a 32:1 glider. Here's a summary of what's
involved:

http://www.motorglide.co.uk/cross-country-endorsement/

... and a video of it being done:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iAOCd18Bv8Y

Would something like this be helpful and/or possible in US clubs? It
should certainly help the confidence of a new XC pilot facing his first
one or two field landings.


--
Martin | martin at
Gregorie | gregorie dot org

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

Dude, this is RAS......logic is hard to find at times......

/sarcasm......

Says the guy that has done stupid stuff at times and tries to make sure others/students don't do the same........

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Thanks for the numbers.

One logical conclusion: Therefore, not giving contest points for racing under 500-1000 feet will have negligible effects on the sporting outcome of the contest.

John Cochrane

[Clay[_5_]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:59:31 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Thanks for the numbers.
>
> One logical conclusion: Therefore, not giving contest points for racing under 500-1000 feet will have negligible effects on the sporting outcome of the contest.
>
> John Cochrane

That's what I was thinking. If it basically never happens (more data would be nice), there's little to no cost in terms of contest results. Would be interesting to look at some of those mass landout hopeless WGC days (I'm sure BB remembers Szeged!) to see if those with lower minimums really benefited. After I recover maybe I'll give that a shot. I hope no one has lowered their minimum to 100 ft based on this thread, then this was all for nothing!

[Andrzej Kobus]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 7:12:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
> If we can control the usable airspace, let's make racing extremely fair so everyone uses the same air. We can have the CD create airspace "hallways" a few miles wide which connect each TP. Since we can detect where everyone is we can legislate the direction of travel within each hallway to avoid the mayhem of two way traffic.
>
> Just because we have the ability to do something doesn't mean we have to do it. Safety rules should not be put into place to keep someone from killing themselves. Safety rules should prevent someone from taking others with them.
>
> Someone augurs in because of "x" it really sucks. If the same "x" takes an innocent pilot or someone on the ground with them it is tragic.

Absolutely right!

[jfitch]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 2:44:27 PM UTC-8, Clay wrote:
> On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:59:31 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Thanks for the numbers.
> >
> > One logical conclusion: Therefore, not giving contest points for racing under 500-1000 feet will have negligible effects on the sporting outcome of the contest.
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> That's what I was thinking. If it basically never happens (more data would be nice), there's little to no cost in terms of contest results. Would be interesting to look at some of those mass landout hopeless WGC days (I'm sure BB remembers Szeged!) to see if those with lower minimums really benefited. After I recover maybe I'll give that a shot. I hope no one has lowered their minimum to 100 ft based on this thread, then this was all for nothing!

It would be interesting to see that analysis done over a wider group. To keep from doing too much work, I'd think that all pilots, on slow days (particularly when there were a high percentage landouts) would be enough. Faster days when everyone made it back are unlikely to have low saves, or if there were, the problem was more specific to the pilot than the contest.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

I didn't get the whole part of this thread on winners. We pretty much know who the top 5 of any contest are going in to it. And accidents seem spread pretty evenly across the scoresheet.

The amazing thing to me as a constant safety guy is just how many risks I see guys in 26th place taking for a few more points. Ballistic trajectory over the last trees to make the airport and get a rolling finish. Flying through thunderstorms. Flying low over totally unlandable terrain. Last minute landouts often coming to grief. Flying 200 feet in to the clouds in start gaggles. Past VNE starts, back in those good old days. Aggressive gaggling. The land-out "patterns" described in the safety reports. Endless very low energy scary finishes back when we had the line (50 feet, 50 knots, middle of the airport is not a great place to be). Flying after all night retrieves and 2 hours sleep. Flying gliders with home-brew repairs after contest damage. None of these pilots does anything nearly so nuts in weekend xc flying..

Yes you say, give them a lecture to stop it, it's not worth it, you're not going to climb out of 26th place this way. And we have been giving that lecture for 50 years, with no discernible result. What do they say about doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result?

Meanwhile, when we put in a low speed start system and higher finishes, those crashes ended.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 6:11:23 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Meanwhile, when we put in a low speed start system and higher finishes, those crashes ended.

We can debate the finish gate (actually, let's not!). But I've gotta question what data you have on high-speed start crashes. I didn't see any in your PPT (I'm not sure when we ditched the start gate but it was still around for at least part of your study period).

I only recall two. One in Minden in the 1970s caused (IIRC) by not locking the main pins so they ratcheted out and departed the fuselage (pilot bailed out successfully). The other was a PIO at Fairfield in the late 90s (?) when a handheld radio got loose in the cockpit and the pilot reached for it, losing control of the glider and departing the cockpit through the hole in the canopy created by the errant radio (also a successful bailout).

Oh, and I'm told there was a pilot who fluttered an early ASW 20 elevator in the 1980s and landed uneventfully to discover some internal damage in the control system.

High-speed starts always sounded lethal whenever CAI and the then Rules Committee were trying to justify mandating GPS flight recorders. Everyone just KNEW high-speed starts were dangerous! To me that's analogous to your average bystander thinking it simply must be dangerous to fly an aircraft without an engine.

I've actually been a lot more uncomfortable on the edge of start cylinders winding around in a gaggle faster and faster with half a dozen gliders all trying to stay a few feet below the top, watching the clock, looking out for at least half a dozen more orbiting in a different part of thermal plus another half dozen bumping the thermal on their way out of the cylinder. A few feet too high? No problem with the gate: just push over on your start run a little sooner. With the cylinder, get the brakes out and ease back down through the gaggle, but not too low, while watching the clock again. I'm not sure that's progress in terms of safety. Nothing comes for free. At least with the start gate, we knew precisely where the start traffic would be.

It's those unintended consequences again.

Chip Bearden

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:54:53 AM UTC-8, wrote:

> I don't have data on earlier accident and fatality rates but it would be great if someone smart who's inclined that way could analyze it (9B???).
>
> Chip Bearden

You correctly identified my inclination at least.

Yes, I have a comprehensive database of all US glider accidents - fatal and non-fatal - for about 20 years. I did it a few years back, so it's not 100% current and doesn't include all the commentary> It also won't include anything not reported to the feds or capture any scary moments that people got away with with only emotional scars.

Obviously we are talking about relatively small probabilities of catastrophic events, under a very specific set of circumstances - and a further subset within that based on particular human motives (where points at stake materially mattered but disinclination to landing out didn't). You'd need a pretty deliberate analytical and research approach to try to try to quantify that.

Ultimately what I think you will end up with is a conversation with a small number of dead pilots and/or broken gliders on one side, a notion of freedom on the other and in the middle some sort of view about whether the behavior in question makes a difference competitively or would respond favorably to a change in how we keep score. I think the answers to these last two questions ought to be looked at before we devolve further into a discussion about the acceptable ratio of carnage to freedom.

I remain skeptical that the proposed solution has a material influence over this sort of behavior or even if it did (assuming that we don't care about the body count aspect for the moment) that people are winning contests with a "below 500' thermalling" strategy. A SeeYou script could probably pull out all the low thermalling and the finish order would give you a sense of the competitive correlation (I bet it's negative). A "what were you thinking" survey of offenders might reveal something about whether the behavior responds to points - I think mostly not, but that's a survey of one (me).

IMO the view is probably not worth the climb, but I'm always open to looking at data.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:59:31 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Thanks for the numbers.
>
> One logical conclusion: Therefore, not giving contest points for racing under 500-1000 feet will have negligible effects on the sporting outcome of the contest.
>
> John Cochrane


John is absolutely right - we ought to implement a bunch of similarly useless rules. Just a few that leap to mind:

- 100 pt penalty for running with wing-tape scissors.
- 50 pt penalty for failure to yield to traffic approaching from the right while gridding
- 500 pt penalty plus public shaming for any pilot caught wearing white shoes at a contest before Memorial Day or after Labor Day.

[Michael Opitz]

At 19:55 02 February 2018, Steve Koerner wrote:
>Chip's great stories reminded me of one of my most magnificent
experiences in a glider. This was coming back to Crystaire after a
long flight decades ago. The sun had set and the gliderport was
closed and completely vacated.. I did a long low pass westbound
down the length of the runway then pulled up for a right downwind.
As I pulled up, right there, were two eagles circling together to the
right in a 1 knot end-of-day thermal. I joined the two eagles
across that thermal for a few hundred feet of climb before continuing
my landing. Obviously I was quite low when I made those
thermalling turns yet I am as sure now as I was then that making
those turns was perfectly safe for me and for all other human
beings. The air was still -- there was essentially no chance of
encountering any degree of sink or turbulence at that particular
occasion.

>Exactly that will never happen again. But something similar might.
I choose liberty please. Pretty please.

Steve, I had a similar experience. It was on October 24, 1998. One
of our club pilots had passed away due to cancer, and his wife Linda
(who is still a pilot in our club) decided to hold his memorial service
on our airport. She requested that I tow out at the end of the
service and do a low contest style flying finish dumping water ballast
as a tribute to Louis, her husband. I was only too happy to oblige.
It was a beautiful Fall day in New England with calm winds and
pretty stable air. I towed out near the end of the service and came
back dumping my water. As I neared the top of my pull-up, I saw a
hawk circling just ahead and to the right. I joined his thermal and
found that he had a nice steady and smooth 2 knots all the way
around. I climbed with the hawk for a few turns gaining altitude
while giving myself enough time to ensure that I had been able to
dump all of my water in case one wing was dumping slower than
the other. I could have stayed with the hawk and climbed away,
but I pulled the plug to join the rest of our club down below. It
was as if Louis had been there giving me a lift...... The airport was
closed except to me. The wx was perfect, and I was right off the
end of our runway. It was perfectly safe as far as I was concerned.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/40eVcQ9t3lXF3mSk2

RO

[Tom Kelley #711]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 6:44:56 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:54:53 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > I don't have data on earlier accident and fatality rates but it would be great if someone smart who's inclined that way could analyze it (9B???).
> >
> > Chip Bearden
>
> You correctly identified my inclination at least.
>
> Yes, I have a comprehensive database of all US glider accidents - fatal and non-fatal - for about 20 years. I did it a few years back, so it's not 100% current and doesn't include all the commentary> It also won't include anything not reported to the feds or capture any scary moments that people got away with with only emotional scars.
>
> Obviously we are talking about relatively small probabilities of catastrophic events, under a very specific set of circumstances - and a further subset within that based on particular human motives (where points at stake materially mattered but disinclination to landing out didn't). You'd need a pretty deliberate analytical and research approach to try to try to quantify that.
>
> Ultimately what I think you will end up with is a conversation with a small number of dead pilots and/or broken gliders on one side, a notion of freedom on the other and in the middle some sort of view about whether the behavior in question makes a difference competitively or would respond favorably to a change in how we keep score. I think the answers to these last two questions ought to be looked at before we devolve further into a discussion about the acceptable ratio of carnage to freedom.
>
> I remain skeptical that the proposed solution has a material influence over this sort of behavior or even if it did (assuming that we don't care about the body count aspect for the moment) that people are winning contests with a "below 500' thermalling" strategy. A SeeYou script could probably pull out all the low thermalling and the finish order would give you a sense of the competitive correlation (I bet it's negative). A "what were you thinking" survey of offenders might reveal something about whether the behavior responds to points - I think mostly not, but that's a survey of one (me).
>
> IMO the view is probably not worth the climb, but I'm always open to looking at data.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

Andy, late 60's to early 70's had falling fiberglass from close to/excessive Vne starts, maybe @ El Mirage contests from flutter....Diamants?

From P3's penalty post, seriously, you just don't "bite and tear" that wing tape? Dang!

[Michael Opitz]

At 00:52 03 February 2018, wrote:

>
>I only recall two. One in Minden in the 1970s caused (IIRC) by not
locking the main pins so they ratcheted out and departed the fuselage
(pilot bailed out successfully). The other was a PIO at Fairfield in the
late 90s (?)

Chip, there was at least one more, and it was fatal. It was an
ASW-19 which was owned by Einar Enevoldson and a USAF test
pilot partner. Einar's partner was practicing high speed starts (so it
may not actually have been during a contest) when he got the
elevator into a flutter mode. IIRC, the stabilizer came off, and he
was killed. I think it happened in CA, and there were law suit issues
so that the USA Schleicher dealer would have had legal issues had he
set foot in CA afterwards. The time frame was early 1980's. After
that, an AD came out to cut two triangular slivers (max 1" wide) off
the elevator trailing edges.

RO

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 5:44:56 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:54:53 AM UTC-8, wrote:
>
> > I don't have data on earlier accident and fatality rates but it would be great if someone smart who's inclined that way could analyze it (9B???).
> >

Here's a link to some files summarizing Glider Fatal and Non-Fatal Accidents over a 20 year period between 1994 and 2013.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOscTfzuk5aY

For the fatal accidents I went to the trouble to read the accident reports as categorize the accident by phase of flight (TO, LDG and FLT - in-flight) as well as probable cause (my categories) as follows - with percent of accidents:

Stall/Spin - 39%
Flight Into Terrain - 17%
Loss of Control - 14%
Midair - 8%
Incapacitation - 7%
Assembly/Config - 7%
Structural - 7%

I also extracted Stall/Spin Accidents as the the most likely way to kill yourself thermalling low and highlighted the three that were during a contest.. (Trigger warning - not fun to read this stuff when you know the people). I can't see that any were thermalling low to avoid an outlanding, except perhaps the Ventus 2 crash at Lea County airport at Hobbs in 1997 where it was reported the pilot made a low approach though no mention of circling and one could easily imagine the attraction of wanting to land on a runway.

If someone wants to sort through the 551 non-fatal accidents - 131 are on approach and 151 are during landing. Please have at it. I'm sure the accident report will mention if it was at a contest and at the home airport or a landout. Since they most likely interviewed the pilot there will probably be enough to read to get a sense of things - though accuracy of reporting may be questionable.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[[email protected]]

> "It would be interesting to see that analysis done over a wider group. To keep from doing too much work, I'd think that all pilots, on slow days (particularly when there were a high percentage landouts) would be enough. Faster days when everyone made it back are unlikely to have low saves, or if there were, the problem was more specific to the pilot than the contest."

I wonder who has more significant crashes, newbies or experience pilots. For what ever reason, as I sit here thinking, most of the serious to fatal crashes I can think of had been pilots with allot of experience.

I had heard that when you get to around 500 hours you need extra caution - it is enough to believe you have the skill but not enough to forget what got you there.

WH

[Tom[_21_]]

Andy - thanks for the data. Backs up the trends we see everywhere, not just racing.

As non racer but a long time professional pilot and instructor I have found this entire thread very revealing about the sport of soaring. Like a "truth window".

No matter if it is power or gliders - the decline of new pilots and the overall health and status of GA is getting exponentially worse.

We are in a state of crisis and have to all work together to solve it. I don't know all the answers but we are trying to make headway where we can.

I do know that large egos, disregard of best safe practices, hubris, risk taking without cognizance, degradation of basic skills, poor decision making, not learning from the past, ignorance and selfishness are all working against us.

The world has changed, like it or not and we are down to the "adapt or perish" stage of our sport and GA as well.

Tom
Sugarbush Soaring

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

Bill, I thought it was 100hrs, but, whatever.
Yes, complacency and, "I can do that" possibly coupled with, "I got away with it before, surely I can do it yet another time....".

As I said before, rules can't fix stupid. Whether a one time bad decision for whatever reason, or a symptom of poor judgement (that hopefully others locally point out on the side.....), rules don't fix stupid.
Continued training does.
Calling out someone to the CD/CM at a contest, talking to high time pilots/CFIG's locally "may" change someone's thought patterns.
Maybe not.
You know me, you know the active CFIG's at your home field, if you feel there is an issue, go talk to them.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

"rules can't fix stupid." we hear that over and over. But it is amazing that when there are points on the table, stupid seems to blossom like mushrooms after a rain. And then vanish the moment we go home and points are off the table. Rules can reward stupid. Or not.

John Cochrane

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

John, you agree or not?
I'm going from the "lottery" of picking start times before 9am to sorta current rules.
I won't say I haven't done sorta stupid stuff in the past, I will say stupid stuff "usually" won't win a US contest.
So.......right back at ya........

Not arguing one way or the other, just voicing my opinion.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Stupid stuff usually does not win contests. Our winners are tremendously talented pilots. Occasional sporting risks are part of the game. One landout, aborted flight through thunderstorm, etc. will lose a contest. So, usually, avoid such problems. But when you have to go, you have to go.

The hard deck case is not about winners doing dumb things while the rest of us sane people sit around and grumble. It's about the many risks that non-winners seem to take when the points clock is on, and do not take when the points clock is off.

It's an interesting contrast. Everywhere else in aviation we seem to have this concept. Minimums for an IFR approach, or you go around, are pretty hard and fast. I don't see vast complaining about this encroachment on the pilots' freedom or judgement.

The FAA's rule which is even a law against busting minimums, with penalties.. The hard deck proposes no such force or penalty. It would be as if airlines gave pilots a $1000 bonus for landing on time, no matter what the weather, and we are proposing, hey, why don't we take the bonus off the table when reported cloudbase is below 500 feet.

John Cochrane

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:52:17 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:

> Here's a link to some files summarizing Glider Fatal and Non-Fatal Accidents over a 20 year period between 1994 and 2013.
>
> https://drive.google.com/open?id=1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOscTfzuk5aY
>


I've received reports of an inoperative link:

Try this one if you have an interest:

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOscTfzuk5aY?usp=sharing

Andy Blackburn
9B

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 2:28:59 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Stupid stuff usually does not win contests. Our winners are tremendously talented pilots. Occasional sporting risks are part of the game. One landout, aborted flight through thunderstorm, etc. will lose a contest. So, usually, avoid such problems. But when you have to go, you have to go.

We (Aero Club Albatross - Blairstown, NJ) have had an atrocious record over the last 10 or so years. We've had at least 10 gliders seriously damaged or destroyed over that time period during field landings. None of these was during a contest. Many of them were during ridge flights, but not all. And we've had several that were incredibly close to being accidents. Not a single one was a record flight or had any "points" on the line.

I would submit that the problem isn't a scoring or points problem, but an airmanship problem.

P3

[3j]

At 00:13 04 February 2018, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:52:17 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn
wrote:
>
>> Here's a link to some files summarizing Glider Fatal and Non-Fatal
>Accidents over a 20 year period between 1994 and 2013.
>>
>> https://drive.google.com/open?
id=1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOscTfzuk5aY
>>
>
>
>I've received reports of an inoperative link:
>
>Try this one if you have an interest:
>
>https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOs
cTfzuk5aY?usp=sharing
>
>Andy Blackburn
>9B
>
Andy, The 4/1/2004 midair at Oso, WA. The Libelle pilot was not
killed. He walked out after a parachute deployment.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 6:15:06 PM UTC-8, 3j wrote:
> At 00:13 04 February 2018, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:52:17 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn
> wrote:
> >
> >> Here's a link to some files summarizing Glider Fatal and Non-Fatal
> >Accidents over a 20 year period between 1994 and 2013.
> >>
> >> https://drive.google.com/open?
> id=1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOscTfzuk5aY
> >>
> >
> >
> >I've received reports of an inoperative link:
> >
> >Try this one if you have an interest:
> >
> >https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOs
> cTfzuk5aY?usp=sharing
> >
> >Andy Blackburn
> >9B
> >
> Andy, The 4/1/2004 midair at Oso, WA. The Libelle pilot was not
> killed. He walked out after a parachute deployment.

Thanks - I'm sure he'll be glad to hear that.

I'll go back and check why that came out that way.

Andy

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Andy -- Many thanks for this incredibly useful resource--far beyond the current issue too.

"Stall spin" usually means low altitude maneuvering. A stall spin at 5000' doesn't usually result in an accident. And all the ones I have looked at, the stall spin is the last link on a long accident chain involving increasing desperation and very low altitude maneuvering.

John Cochrane.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:24:32 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 6:15:06 PM UTC-8, 3j wrote:
> > At 00:13 04 February 2018, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > >On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 9:52:17 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> Here's a link to some files summarizing Glider Fatal and Non-Fatal
> > >Accidents over a 20 year period between 1994 and 2013.
> > >>
> > >> https://drive.google.com/open?
> > id=1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOscTfzuk5aY
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >I've received reports of an inoperative link:
> > >
> > >Try this one if you have an interest:
> > >
> > >https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1sbx5LHrvryYyYRU0UnapIOs
> > cTfzuk5aY?usp=sharing
> > >
> > >Andy Blackburn
> > >9B
> > >
> > Andy, The 4/1/2004 midair at Oso, WA. The Libelle pilot was not
> > killed. He walked out after a parachute deployment.
>
> Thanks - I'm sure he'll be glad to hear that.
>
> I'll go back and check why that came out that way.
>
> Andy

Apologies, I should have checked first before making a joke. I see now this was the Libelle/DG-400 midair.

The database correctly shows the fatality in the DG, not the Libelle. The way the NTSB tracks these accidents there were two gliders involved in a fatal accident with a single fatality. There are some others, such as the towplane that collided with a Cirrus in Colorado. That one show three aircraft and four fatalities with a glider involved.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 8:31:44 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Andy -- Many thanks for this incredibly useful resource--far beyond the current issue too.
>
> "Stall spin" usually means low altitude maneuvering. A stall spin at 5000' doesn't usually result in an accident. And all the ones I have looked at, the stall spin is the last link on a long accident chain involving increasing desperation and very low altitude maneuvering.
>
> John Cochrane.

I believe I only count stall/spin when it terminates at the ground. Stall/spin not on TO or LDG almost always is in the mountains. There are a few of those.

Updated the fatal accident database through 2017 for the morbidly analytical.

Andy

[[email protected]]

Same thing happened to me when I was independently querying the NTSB database a few nights ago. Twice I read fatality reports involving pilots I knew were still around (e.g., KS)! Turns out there were two reports for the midairs, one for each aircraft. The reports, often written by investigators who know little about soaring, are imperfect albeit sobering. And they're searchable by various criteria. And downloadable.

Without mentioning types, I was struck by how often certain gliders seemed to show up. Maybe 9B could do some analysis leading to a "safest gliders to fly" or "safest gliders for lower-time pilots" or "safest gliders to crash" report. Seriously. Many of the data needed are available, not all from the same source, of course: accidents, registrations, hours and ratings of the affected pilots (usually), hours in type, context (contest participation is often mentioned when applicable), contest experience by pilot and by type, pilot ranking at the time, age, etc. I wish the digitized versions went back further (1982 IIRC) but there is still a lot of valuable information.

Chip Bearden

[Tango Eight]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:41:45 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> But it is amazing that when there are points on the table, stupid seems to blossom like mushrooms after a rain. And then vanish the moment we go home and points are off the table.

We've seen all that at wave camp.

I think we have many pilots with an odd, and I would say "defective" sense of risk management, one that says it's okay to stack on a lot more risk when flying for objectives. Encapsulated nicely by the guy you and I both know that says of final glides, in a nearly theatrical manner, "They are SUPPOSED to be dangerous!". The guy that thinks like this (and he has company) is going to find ways to put himself in dangerous situations under performance pressure regardless of rules. The high finish probably has been beneficial to safety... although I can think of three serious crashes just at one contest site that followed 500' or higher finishes.

In our club, we're putting extra effort on risk assessment / risk management, along with a "train like you fight, fight like you train" philosophy towards flying for objectives. I doubt very much that we will transform the sport, but perhaps we can plant some seeds for the future.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Nice story T8

It is interesting that over the last few decades, airlines have reduced crashes essentially to zero. Ok, not quite still, but orders of magnitude safer than any other means of transportation (trains, cars, busses) and probably walking too.

Meanwhile, gliders continue on our merry way, with something like 3 fatalities per year out of well less than 10,000 active pilots in the US. Far more than driving, with far fewer hours per year.

By all rights, this should be safer than power flying. The planes are simple and true mechanical failure extremely rare. No engine? No engine failure, no engine fire, no gas to run out of. We just eliminated a lot of GA power's main problems. It is never an emergency that the engine quit. You know the engine quit from the moment you got out of bed in the morning! It is perfectly predictable that you will need to find a place to land. We don't fly at night. We don't fly in fog, marginal IFR, low cloudbases, all the get-home-itis situations that tempt power pilots to trouble. We're not trying to get somewhere. There are no passengers to disappoint.

So just why is our accident rate so awful. Well, yes, you say, training and so forth. Except the accident rate among well trained pilots is pretty awful too. Think of all the famous pilots, or your many thousand hours friends who crashed on ridges, crashed in off field landings, ran in to mountains, broke up in lennies, and so forth.

One contrast. The airlines look hard at each crash, and take positive steps to do something about it. We sit in the back and mutter "what a bozo, I wouldn't do that." Another: flying an airliner looks like a lot less fun.

John Cochrane

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 10:49:36 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Nice story T8
>
> It is interesting that over the last few decades, airlines have reduced crashes essentially to zero. Ok, not quite still, but orders of magnitude safer than any other means of transportation (trains, cars, busses) and probably walking too.
>
> Meanwhile, gliders continue on our merry way, with something like 3 fatalities per year out of well less than 10,000 active pilots in the US. Far more than driving, with far fewer hours per year.
>
> By all rights, this should be safer than power flying. The planes are simple and true mechanical failure extremely rare. No engine? No engine failure, no engine fire, no gas to run out of. We just eliminated a lot of GA power's main problems. It is never an emergency that the engine quit. You know the engine quit from the moment you got out of bed in the morning! It is perfectly predictable that you will need to find a place to land. We don't fly at night. We don't fly in fog, marginal IFR, low cloudbases, all the get-home-itis situations that tempt power pilots to trouble. We're not trying to get somewhere. There are no passengers to disappoint.
>
> So just why is our accident rate so awful. Well, yes, you say, training and so forth. Except the accident rate among well trained pilots is pretty awful too. Think of all the famous pilots, or your many thousand hours friends who crashed on ridges, crashed in off field landings, ran in to mountains, broke up in lennies, and so forth.
>
> One contrast. The airlines look hard at each crash, and take positive steps to do something about it. We sit in the back and mutter "what a bozo, I wouldn't do that." Another: flying an airliner looks like a lot less fun.
>
> John Cochrane

When ACA decided "enough is enough" with the stupid ****, we got together and started to rethink safety from all angles. We looked at every single accident and near accident/incident across multiple dimensions (pilot experience, weather, terrain, etc.) As mentioned upstream, one of our single biggest findings was that too many pilots are cavalier about XC flight and outlandings, especially in areas of challenging terrain. Another obvious issue was guys flying in really challenging weather (which often comes along with good/great ridge days).

We're making strides in education, club guidelines, etc. But one thing I can see as an instructor is that the US does a LOT less in terms of formal XC training than what I've seen flying at clubs in Europe. For example, you can be a CFI-G in the US never having been outside gliding range of the home field. In the UK, at least Basic and Full instructors have to have a Silver badge (which is still fairly minimal, but at least it's something).

Again - as mentioned up thread - I really think it's a mistake that we don't think more about experience-level competition rather than glider class. What's perfectly safe for someone with decades of competition experience across a wide range of conditions may not be at all safe for someone who just got his Silver badge two weeks before the comp. Adjusting tasking and task parameters to be a bit more conservative for the newbies won't make it any less fun.

And to ND's comment above - it's one thing to take someone with a gold badge and 20 significant XC flights under his/her belt and put them up against a Category 1 pilot. But putting a 50 hour pilot with a freshly minted Silver into the mix is a recipe for disaster IMO.

[Dan Marotta]

I see a lot of invalid comparisons in this discussion.Â* How many
airliners or GA aircraft/pilots run ridges, fly mountain wave, etc.?Â*
And to say that, since only one crash occurred at a contest with a 500'
finish limit, makes that safer is ludicrous.Â* In the example stated
there were only 3 crashes total!Â* Anyone with a basic knowledge of
probability would not make any assumption based on a set of three
occurrences.

After 200 odd replies to this thread (is that some sort of record?),
nothing has been settled.Â* What a waste of time.

On 2/4/2018 8:49 AM, John Cochrane wrote:
> Nice story T8
>
> It is interesting that over the last few decades, airlines have reduced crashes essentially to zero. Ok, not quite still, but orders of magnitude safer than any other means of transportation (trains, cars, busses) and probably walking too.
>
> Meanwhile, gliders continue on our merry way, with something like 3 fatalities per year out of well less than 10,000 active pilots in the US. Far more than driving, with far fewer hours per year.
>
> By all rights, this should be safer than power flying. The planes are simple and true mechanical failure extremely rare. No engine? No engine failure, no engine fire, no gas to run out of. We just eliminated a lot of GA power's main problems. It is never an emergency that the engine quit. You know the engine quit from the moment you got out of bed in the morning! It is perfectly predictable that you will need to find a place to land. We don't fly at night. We don't fly in fog, marginal IFR, low cloudbases, all the get-home-itis situations that tempt power pilots to trouble. We're not trying to get somewhere. There are no passengers to disappoint.
>
> So just why is our accident rate so awful. Well, yes, you say, training and so forth. Except the accident rate among well trained pilots is pretty awful too. Think of all the famous pilots, or your many thousand hours friends who crashed on ridges, crashed in off field landings, ran in to mountains, broke up in lennies, and so forth.
>
> One contrast. The airlines look hard at each crash, and take positive steps to do something about it. We sit in the back and mutter "what a bozo, I wouldn't do that." Another: flying an airliner looks like a lot less fun.
>
> John Cochrane

--
Dan, 5J

[[email protected]]

You can't fly a glider the way airlines fly. Airline pilots flying general aviation aircraft on their days off have the same accident rate as nonairline pilots. I'm not defending ****ty flying, just pointing out that the airline model is not applicable outside of the airlines. From being around the reckless fringes of aviation I think the only method that improves safety is mockery and social shame. Don't help pilots hide their stupid, instead openly mock poor piloting decisions. Safety through bullying. Yes it is unpleasant, that is why it works.
On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 10:49:36 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Nice story T8
>
> It is interesting that over the last few decades, airlines have reduced crashes essentially to zero. Ok, not quite still, but orders of magnitude safer than any other means of transportation (trains, cars, busses) and probably walking too.
>
> Meanwhile, gliders continue on our merry way, with something like 3 fatalities per year out of well less than 10,000 active pilots in the US. Far more than driving, with far fewer hours per year.
>
> By all rights, this should be safer than power flying. The planes are simple and true mechanical failure extremely rare. No engine? No engine failure, no engine fire, no gas to run out of. We just eliminated a lot of GA power's main problems. It is never an emergency that the engine quit. You know the engine quit from the moment you got out of bed in the morning! It is perfectly predictable that you will need to find a place to land. We don't fly at night. We don't fly in fog, marginal IFR, low cloudbases, all the get-home-itis situations that tempt power pilots to trouble. We're not trying to get somewhere. There are no passengers to disappoint.
>
> So just why is our accident rate so awful. Well, yes, you say, training and so forth. Except the accident rate among well trained pilots is pretty awful too. Think of all the famous pilots, or your many thousand hours friends who crashed on ridges, crashed in off field landings, ran in to mountains, broke up in lennies, and so forth.
>
> One contrast. The airlines look hard at each crash, and take positive steps to do something about it. We sit in the back and mutter "what a bozo, I wouldn't do that." Another: flying an airliner looks like a lot less fun.
>
> John Cochrane

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 8:21:06 AM UTC-8, Dan Marotta wrote:
> Anyone with a basic knowledge of
> probability would not make any assumption based on a set of three
> occurrences.
>

The most important part of any statistical analysis in making sure you're picking the right data to analyze, and that it's representative of the things you're trying to measure. Rare, catastrophic events are easy to misunderstand or rationalize. You can't go at them assuming you know the answer already or you will most likely end up with the wrong analysis and/or wrong conclusion. Glider pilots seem to be particularly prone to that - sometimes right but never uncertain!

Andy Blackburn
9B

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Good points. I've noticed a few airline pilots among the particularly, er, bold contest pilots; one or two in the crash statistics including (sadly) an airline safety check pilot glider fatality, involving very low and late decisionmaking about a landout; and I have seen airline pilots particularly vocal (to the point of yelling at me using profanity) about ideas like high finish gates and hard decks, ideas they fly by every day of their working lives. Of course, I know some other airline pilots in the glider community who are absolute models of how to fly fast, efficiently, proficiently, and safely. So bottom line, there is no obvious correlation. An interesting perspective for the proposition that more education will help.

Another aspect is planning. As someone said earlier in the thread, we head off cross country with very little planning. I am particularly guilty of this, often showing up at a race with very little time spent even considering the area to be flown.

Imagine if airlines had to thermal to get from place to place. Surely every single landable field along the way would be marked, studied, in a little booklet (now computer), and you would fly "airport to airport" with conservative numerical minimums. The idea that the pilot would just look out the window, commit to his course while still far away, then find and evaluate fields from the air would be laughed at. (A paradox of our immense high performance gliders is that you really cannot evaluate your landing options from the air. At 10k AGL out west especially, your landing option can be 50 miles away, over a hill and up a valley!)

If only there were 100,000 of us, this kind of investment would be worth it..

John Cochrane

[Tango Eight]

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 10:49:36 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> "what a bozo, I wouldn't do that."

Right. What you'll be doing on the way to your next wgc. Hope they don't stick you with a direct finish.

T8

[Dan Marotta]

On 2/4/2018 5:16 PM, John Cochrane wrote:
> snip
>
> Imagine if airlines had to thermal to get from place to place.
snip
> John Cochrane
Imagine the cleanup crews required to remove the vomit from the
cabins... :-D
--
Dan, 5J

[ND]

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 2:28:59 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Stupid stuff usually does not win contests. Our winners are tremendously talented pilots. Occasional sporting risks are part of the game. One landout, aborted flight through thunderstorm, etc. will lose a contest. So, usually, avoid such problems. But when you have to go, you have to go.
>
> The hard deck case is not about winners doing dumb things while the rest of us sane people sit around and grumble. It's about the many risks that non-winners seem to take when the points clock is on, and do not take when the points clock is off.
>
> It's an interesting contrast. Everywhere else in aviation we seem to have this concept. Minimums for an IFR approach, or you go around, are pretty hard and fast. I don't see vast complaining about this encroachment on the pilots' freedom or judgement.
>
> The FAA's rule which is even a law against busting minimums, with penalties. The hard deck proposes no such force or penalty. It would be as if airlines gave pilots a $1000 bonus for landing on time, no matter what the weather, and we are proposing, hey, why don't we take the bonus off the table when reported cloudbase is below 500 feet.
>
> John Cochrane

John,

I disagree that folks at 500 feet are thinking about points. in your safety analysis posted very far above, you showed a guy thermalling very low in stone valley, just to the northwest side of stone mountain. i've landed out there before. the guy wasn't circling at 400 feet thinking, "gee i better make this work or i'll lose all those speed points." he was thinking he better make that bubble work because he had nowhere else to go. his landing options were poor, he wasn't fighting for points, he was trying to stay out of a field. a hard deck doesn't accomplish anything to stop this situation from evolving.

points are on people's minds at 1500 feet when they think "man, i'm out of a good working band, and this is gonna slow me down." 1000 feet later, they aren't thinking about points anymore. any sensible pilot has already been thinking about landing options, and has a plan in mind. if it's a rock solid plan they might try circling. if it's not, they still might try circling, because it's more attractive than what's on the ground. the presence of a hard deck doesn't factor into the decision making process here.

for one reason or another, people will still attempt circles below it, guaranteed. So if it isn't correcting a safety related behavior, and we agree that it won't affect the scoresheet very much, what does a hard deck accomplish, and what's the point?

for me it's a different discussion from the finish line thing. i mentioned it earlier, but i'm throwing that aside, not least because it's still possible to have one. i keep responding because i don't think the hard deck solves any problem at all. what would be more effective would be a powerpoint presentation at the contest briefing about low saves, circling low, safety, and know areas of chancy landing options. maybe with a few pictures of broken gliders, nasty fields people had to squeeze into, and x-rays of a broken collarbone from a groundloop after a rushed forced landing. in particular there's a youtube video of a really last minute pattern and scary landing floating around. this sort of media is a better motivator than someone being reminded halfway through their pattern that they just lost all their points. i'll smash the SUA warning on downwind, going, "yeah great, thanks john, don't care right now."

Because that's what's going to happen. the majority of folks will get a SUA warning halfway through their pattern. they will have already committed to landing. is that the kind of distraction you want to introduce into the cockpit when there are much more pressing matters to attend to?

I think its a no-brainer.

it's hard to convey tone-of-voice online. Written with all due respect!

ND

[Nick Kennedy]

Here is a little rambling rant I wanted to get off my mind:
This has been a very interesting thread with a lot of good information and statistics put forth.
What this has driven home for me is, really, how dangerous this sport of cross country sailplane flying really is. It is hard to attract new pilots to this cross country aspect of Soaring because it is a reality that landing off airport is so dangerous in alot of areas we fly. I'm only familiar with the area west of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains, never been gliding in the east or the midwest or the south. I mainly fly out of Salida, Parowan, Nephi and Ely and at my home site of Telluride. In 20 + years of going cross country in a sailplane I have only put it into a field once, flying out of Logan, and it was a unworked semi clearing that was really rough. I was surprised that my glider was OK after I got out, super rough.
That makes me think that's why alot of Pilots don't really like assigned tasks, unless there carefully designed to fly airport to airport. As several posts have made clear for various reasons off airport landings are SO dangerous. Look at Blairstown's statistics, scary.
TAT days at least give you a choice on where to go as far as safety is concerned.
One particularly crazy area we send pilots on competition tasks IMHO is the area SE out of Parowan between Cedar City and Kanab, over Zion National park. I have been so scared out there several times. You go down in there and you are going to get killed, for sure. Yet they call tasks over it. Sure you can go around it, but it is a long way around, but you do have that choice of course.
This hard deck proposal that started this thread has turned out to be fairly complex. Another layer of rules when we are trying to get away from more rules.
It is clear that alot of nasty accidents are caused by pilots desperate not to land out in a field. Circling very low and trying not to land, and then either stalling and spinning or blowing the approach. I am guilty of this low level circling too. Last year out of Nephi I had a very low save over the Yuba Reservoir while setting up to land. It was a long series of events that led to me being a couple of hundred feet off the ground going into a unknown potential landing site, on the dirt road going into the reservoir.It looked doable from the air but who knows, all I thought was road landings often go bad. Baby Jesus got me out of that one.
I don't think any new rule is going to change this behavior. Us guys that are still alive have to be as careful as possible. Cross Country Soaring is super fun when its going well, bombing down cloudstreets at 17K with your friends is the best, but we have to remember that when close to the ground, you are one, quick, easy to make mistake from getting killed.
Keep the speed up and be careful, especially when close to the ground, either taking off, ridge soaring or landing.
And try to stay of of those fields that you don't know about first hand.

[Clay[_5_]]

On Sunday, February 4, 2018 at 12:54:03 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> You can't fly a glider the way airlines fly. Airline pilots flying general aviation aircraft on their days off have the same accident rate as nonairline pilots. I'm not defending ****ty flying, just pointing out that the airline model is not applicable outside of the airlines. From being around the reckless fringes of aviation I think the only method that improves safety is mockery and social shame. Don't help pilots hide their stupid, instead openly mock poor piloting decisions. Safety through bullying. Yes it is unpleasant, that is why it works.

Maybe a feature of each pilots meeting could be an evaluation of the previous day's landouts (ideally with a projector). I gotta think some of my patterns would've been better if I knew everyone would be analyzing it the next day. We could even hand out gold stars.

[Bob Whelan[_3_]]

>> You can't fly a glider the way airlines fly. Airline pilots flying
>> general aviation aircraft on their days off have the same accident rate
>> as nonairline pilots. I'm not defending ****ty flying, just pointing out
>> that the airline model is not applicable outside of the airlines. From
>> being around the reckless fringes of aviation I think the only method
>> that improves safety is mockery and social shame. Don't help pilots hide
>> their stupid, instead openly mock poor piloting decisions. Safety
>> through bullying. Yes it is unpleasant, that is why it works.
>
> Maybe a feature of each pilots meeting could be an evaluation of the
> previous day's landouts (ideally with a projector). I gotta think some of
> my patterns would've been better if I knew everyone would be analyzing it
> the next day. We could even hand out gold stars.

"Safety through bullying"...haw! (IMO, on-target peer pressure ain't bullying.)

Semantics aside, peer pressure and Darwinism - damn powerful forces!
Resistance is futile!!! :)

Bob W.

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

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

In some respects, please don't pick on Blairstown. I have know quite a few that have flown/still fly there. There have been, mostly the last few years, a few real "hard chargers" willing to do some things that I have an issue with.
When they talk to lower time XC pilots and basically say, "oh yeh, sure, suck it up at this transition and you will likely make it.....".
I have seen some local threads by some of these hard chargers and comments on what they consider a decent landing option.
Welllllll......yessssss........that spot is likely better than trees, but marginally so. Even me, with some places I have successfully landed, looked at some of these proposed options and said, "WTF!"?

So maybe a couple peeps with a high tolerance to major risk (usually in someone else's glider) says, fine, go for it, may be setting a poor example.
In general, I wouldn't say Blairstown is high risk.
FWIW......

[Kevin Christner]

Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

[[email protected]]

I think the Hard Deck is pretty much done :) - I think everyone wants safe flying - but getting it is more than a Hard deck can deliver.

I am not so sure the argument that more pilots would race..... even if it were much more safe (as safe as getting high off the ground with no engine can be)

But I think we all have to realize that the majority of people who enjoy sports do not enjoy competition. Most skiers do not race - most kayak paddlers do not race....... on and on.

I think is our obligation to Soaring to provide access and share our passion - it is all you can ask - I do not think the Hard Deck rule has any impact. Most of the impact I have had has come from listening to Soaring pilots - We don't need to Bully, but we do need to communicate and validate more.

If we're serious about changing behavior.

We will all say we have a hard deck that is pretty high (500+) - let's make it a practice to look at some logs and see how we're really doing. Maybe look at some other thing we all agree we do. Like circling the right direction, passing on the correct side on a ridge day or not pointing our glider at any one whlie flying...

WH

[ND]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:
>
> 1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.
>
> 2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.
>
> 3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

yeah, i'd like to see a SUA hard deck file that works for any of new york state... we land on the high ground, we land in the valleys. we also ridge soar 700 feet above the valley floor to make saves. there is no practical way to make a SUA file for Mifflin, Harris hill, blairstown, new hampshire, VT et cetera. the terrain is far too complex. maybe for a place like TSA, Hobbs, Ceasar Creek, or perry, you could implement it, but there are just too many places where you can be thermalling within proximity of higher terrain, while maintaining a good altitude margin above the surrounding area. google Mount pisgah in PA, and imagine a low save 500 feet above the peak of that mountain. there's just no way to make it sensical in areas of complex terrain.

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 2:18:50 PM UTC-8, ND wrote:
> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> > Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:
> >
> > 1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.
> >
> > 2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.
> >
> > 3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.
>
> yeah, i'd like to see a SUA hard deck file that works for any of new york state... we land on the high ground, we land in the valleys. we also ridge soar 700 feet above the valley floor to make saves. there is no practical way to make a SUA file for Mifflin, Harris hill, blairstown, new hampshire, VT et cetera. the terrain is far too complex. maybe for a place like TSA, Hobbs, Ceasar Creek, or perry, you could implement it, but there are just too many places where you can be thermalling within proximity of higher terrain, while maintaining a good altitude margin above the surrounding area. google Mount pisgah in PA, and imagine a low save 500 feet above the peak of that mountain. there's just no way to make it sensical in areas of complex terrain.

Not that I'm in favor of the Hard Deck - I remain unconvinced that it materially affects pilot decision making and I think the argument that successful pilots systematically use low thermalling as a tactic has scant evidence to support it. Nevertheless, the above criticisms probably aren't the main ones, or even correct. The idea was to define the hard deck only above the lowest terrain you could reasonably glide to and in discrete steps MSL so it isn't continually varying. So it's not clearance form the ridge below you, it's clearance from the bottom of the nearest, lowest valley. That means there would be no hard deck at ridges higher than 500'.

It probably gets complicated if you need to soar <500' ridges or over wide escarpments adjacent to lower valleys (from what height can you clear the edge, shifting the landout option from on top of the escarpment to the valley?), but those situations are quite a bit rarer. For those of you who have ever flown on a day with morning valley fog with the mountains poking out, it's kind of like that.

As I said, I'm not a fan of the proposal, but we should probably stick to discussion of what was actually proposed or everyone will get confused.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.

Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.

John cochrane

[jfitch]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 3:11:40 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:
>
> JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over
>
> 1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.
>
> JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I
>
> 2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.
>
> JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose..
>
> 3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.
>
> JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.
>
> Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.
>
> John cochrane

The discussion has focused in on low saves. A low save attempt is the next to last link in a chain of events, the last of which may be a broken glider.. I can't speak for John's idea, but the hard deck I was think of would break that chain back when you could do something about it.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 1:14:40 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 3:11:40 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> > Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:
> >
> > JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over
> >
> > 1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.
> >
> > JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I
> >
> > 2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.
> >
> > JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose.
> >
> > 3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.
> >
> > JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.
> >
> > Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.
> >
> > John cochrane
>
> The discussion has focused in on low saves. A low save attempt is the next to last link in a chain of events, the last of which may be a broken glider. I can't speak for John's idea, but the hard deck I was think of would break that chain back when you could do something about it.

Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.

T8

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.


Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?

Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it.. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.

I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.

Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion

John Cochrane

[ND]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:
>
> JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over
>
> 1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.
>
> JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I
>
> 2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.
>
> JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose..
>
> 3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.
>
> JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.
>
> Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.
>
> John cochrane

John,

It's not a question of staring incessantly at your screen. it's about having a SUA warning go "BUUH-REEEEE! ...AIRSPACE..." when you are at 500 feet (ostensibly 3/4 of the way through downwind). it's a legitimate distraction, no question.

Descending through 500 AGL on downwind:

"BUUH-REEEEEE!"

"****! was that my gear warning??" *cycles gear back UP unknowingly*

It sounds silly, but you know in a tense moment we do stupid things and get confused. i once saw a guy land in the same field as me, come to a stop, and pull his gear up.

i know harris hill is just one site, but there are many with similarities. to your point about hobbs perry et cet. flatland becomes simple. but at sites with slope-y terrain, why is it OK to cirlce within 500 feet of high ground with a valley close-by, but not down in the valleys? the hard deck doesn't protect you from stall/spin at sloping sites like NY,PA,VA,VT,UT,CA,NV if you're low over high ground. and there are lots of locations where you can be circling at 400 feet over a hilltop field, with a valley close by. copy and paste this link below and look what's 1.7 miles southwest of my marked location. i circled at 500 feet above the field i have marked. That's no different in terms of stall spin, than doing it in the valley. the only difference is that if i lost 100 feet i could glide out to the valley and be over an airport. but a spin right there coulda had me sleeping with the fishes:

,1355m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!1m2!2m1!1scostas+airport!3m5!1s0 x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d42.2037464!4d-77.111644!5m1!1e4

the hard deck does nothing to protect you in this situation. so i question it's overall effectiveness. if you look at a valley fog satellite loop for somewhere like harris hill, you'll realize just what a small percentage of the contest site you are covering with the hard deck in the half-dozen states i mention above. it leaves plenty of opportunities for low circling over landable non-ridge terrain.



but let's go back to flat sites. those places generally have a wide selection of large fields. this year at hobbs i landed in a field that was a no brainer in terms of size and obstructions, but it was SOFT. late in the day when it's calm, i think you'd find people cirlcing low to stay out of the field, hard deck or not. at flat land sites where the options are poor, (Hobbs, west) you could find people circling low to stay out of nasty terrain in what i'll call panic mode. it happened this year in fact.

My point isn't that a hard deck is stupid, or for nancies, or even that "this is another silly cochrane rule" (forgive me for that one, and please take it in the spirit in which it was intended). that IS how i felt at first, truly. but now, having considered the hard deck from many angles, and what it does/doesn't do, i don't think it prevents the circumstances people end up in, or their low altitude behavior. i think it just punishes them for it.. but as a punishment it doesn't prevent that behavior in the moment or even in the future.


i reiterate, 500 feet is quite low. but i've done it under certain conditions. a hard deck won't stop people from making low circles.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 5:11:40 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
> Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:
>
> JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over
>
> 1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.
>
> JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice.

I think I see your intent, John, but I think you oversimplify "flatland" a bit too much.

Taking Hobbs and Uvalde as examples of your "flatland", one single MSL altitude would not be a good idea. Hobbs is at 3707 MSL. Big Spring is often used, and it is at 2573, or about 1100 feet lower. Portales is at 4078, so a bit over 300 feet higher, and about 1500 feet higher than the low area.

Using Uvalde, at 942 MSL, with Sonora at 2140 and Uno Mas at 380, again, over 1500 elevation difference between the low and high ends of the task area.

Not saying it can't be done, but it will not be a simple "one altitude MSL hard deck" unless it is above normal tow release altitude over the low ground to keep it high enough to eliminate low circling for points over the high ground. We may not have much contour change here in the center of the US, but we are not level. :-)

I do applaud your analysis of the data and attempts to find ways to make cross country racing safer. I wish there was a simple answer, but I don't think a hard deck is acceptable even as a complex answer.

My .02
Steve Leonard
Flat Lander (but not a Flat Earther)

[ND]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:
>
> JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over
>
> 1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.
>
> JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I
>
> 2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.
>
> JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose..
>
> 3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.
>
> JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.
>
> Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.
>
> John cochrane

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

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:55:32 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.
>
>
> Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?
>
> Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.
>
> I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.
>
> Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion
>
> John Cochrane

No, I'm not kidding. However I have (unintentionally) exposed your rather considerable confirmation bias.

I was responding to Jon's earlier stated idea to create a hard deck thousands of feet in the air.

What I relish is the fact that it's all on me as PIC. I have to be disciplined enough to know when to say "screw this, I'm landing", or "screw this, I'm at Tatum bound for Portales, it's blue, there's cirrus, I'm unfamiliar with the terrain, it looks like the moon, I'm out of my element, I'm fatigued, I'm going to stay with the clouds and wait" (day 1, 2013 15s). I relish the fact that I know I am bigger & stronger than my own ego. That day my score sucked but the glider was safely in the box, still shiny. My tie down neighbor's... not so much.

Back to the 500' thing: at 500' over a landable field, I'm landing. Duh. What the **** is going to happen in the 120 seconds between 500' and 250' that didn't happen in the last half hour? With about 99% probability... nothing at all.

ND: The smart thing to do if the nannies do have their way is leave all that airspace out of your nav equipment and just fly your best game. You tag the airspace, well sucks to be you.

I don't think we need the rule, I will oppose it if asked. My prediction is: if such a rule were adopted, it won't be 500' for very darned long.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[ND]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 1:15:10 PM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:55:32 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.
> >
> >
> > Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?
> >
> > Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.
> >
> > I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.
> >
> > Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> No, I'm not kidding. However I have (unintentionally) exposed your rather considerable confirmation bias.
>
> I was responding to Jon's earlier stated idea to create a hard deck thousands of feet in the air.
>
> What I relish is the fact that it's all on me as PIC. I have to be disciplined enough to know when to say "screw this, I'm landing", or "screw this, I'm at Tatum bound for Portales, it's blue, there's cirrus, I'm unfamiliar with the terrain, it looks like the moon, I'm out of my element, I'm fatigued, I'm going to stay with the clouds and wait" (day 1, 2013 15s). I relish the fact that I know I am bigger & stronger than my own ego. That day my score sucked but the glider was safely in the box, still shiny. My tie down neighbor's... not so much.
>
> Back to the 500' thing: at 500' over a landable field, I'm landing. Duh. What the **** is going to happen in the 120 seconds between 500' and 250' that didn't happen in the last half hour? With about 99% probability... nothing at all.
>
> ND: The smart thing to do if the nannies do have their way is leave all that airspace out of your nav equipment and just fly your best game. You tag the airspace, well sucks to be you.
>
> I don't think we need the rule, I will oppose it if asked. My prediction is: if such a rule were adopted, it won't be 500' for very darned long.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

agreed! i almost wrote that i wasn't going to upload the SUA file unless absolutely mandated.

[Kevin Christner]

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:
>
> JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over

Its been a long thread but I think these are all new points / questions.
>
> 1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.
>
> JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice.

See Steve Leonard's post. Even over "flatlands" turn point / terrain can very by hundreds (even more than a thousand) feet. Also, are we going to have some sites with hard deck and others without?

>
> 2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.
>
> JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose..

Except now you have people looking down at their flight computers when close to terrain (likely under 2 minutes until you need to climb out or land). Take your Mifflin carve out example. ****, I'm going to hit the hard deck, but if I fly towards the ridge there won't be a hard deck and I'll do that. Now I'm at the ridge, its not working and I've left myself no options to land.

>
> 3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.
>
> JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.
>
> Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.

Nope, I just think this adds significant complexity without any data supporting it that it adds in any way to safety. I can't say I follow every accident religiously, but the last stall / spin into terrain from low level that comes to mind recently is more than 10 years ago (Peter Masak at Mifflin) which your proposal would not have prevented. I really enjoy alot of your economics work - you're probably one of the top center-right economists of your generation. But you base that work on data, and I just don't think you have any data to support your proposal other than "I think this is a good idea." Thats the nonsensical argument Paul Krugman puts into the NYT on a regular basis ;).

>
> John cochrane

[Kevin Christner]

> I don't think we need the rule, I will oppose it if asked. My prediction is: if such a rule were adopted, it won't be 500' for very darned long.

As you aptly point out, and John certainly knows, once you've implemented a regulation it only begets further and more asinine regulation. Reading John's academic work you'd have no idea it was the same John Cochrane who's proposing this new (un)safety rule.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

John's academic work is all about how poorly crafted regulations give bad incentives. Regulation isn't about "more" or "less" it's about "smart" vs. "dumb", the latter often giving bad incentives.
John

[jfitch]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:55:32 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.
> >
> >
> > Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?
> >
> > Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.
> >
> > I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.
> >
> > Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion
> >
> > John Cochrane
>
> No, I'm not kidding. However I have (unintentionally) exposed your rather considerable confirmation bias.
>
> I was responding to Jon's earlier stated idea to create a hard deck thousands of feet in the air.
>
> What I relish is the fact that it's all on me as PIC. I have to be disciplined enough to know when to say "screw this, I'm landing", or "screw this, I'm at Tatum bound for Portales, it's blue, there's cirrus, I'm unfamiliar with the terrain, it looks like the moon, I'm out of my element, I'm fatigued, I'm going to stay with the clouds and wait" (day 1, 2013 15s). I relish the fact that I know I am bigger & stronger than my own ego. That day my score sucked but the glider was safely in the box, still shiny. My tie down neighbor's... not so much.
>
> Back to the 500' thing: at 500' over a landable field, I'm landing. Duh. What the **** is going to happen in the 120 seconds between 500' and 250' that didn't happen in the last half hour? With about 99% probability... nothing at all.
>
> ND: The smart thing to do if the nannies do have their way is leave all that airspace out of your nav equipment and just fly your best game. You tag the airspace, well sucks to be you.
>
> I don't think we need the rule, I will oppose it if asked. My prediction is: if such a rule were adopted, it won't be 500' for very darned long.
>
> Evan Ludeman / T8

Well, this discussion has been quite the education for me. Now this thread is only a sampling of about 10 pilots, but many among those consider taking occasional, considerable risks up to an including imminent chance of death part of soaring competition, because it has always been that way and they like it. I personally know a few pilots with similar attitudes towards the sport, but it is a small minority among the pilot community that I fly with..

An interesting side line to the discussion is the notion that safety is a binary quantity: you either are, or are not safe in a certain situation. I view it much more as a continuum from almost safe to damned dangerous. It stems directly from the margin for error allowed at any moment. That margin for error must include errors due to pilot skill, weather conditions, other aircraft, and the unknown unknowns. You can affect only the first of those. If the margin for error is large (high, clear benign weather, etc.) the you are relatively safe. If the margin for error is allowed to go very low (circling at 400 ft over a field you've never landed in) the slightest of errors of any kind - not just pilot skill - can break through the margin to calamity.

Is circling at 2000 ft safe? Relatively. At 1000? not as much. At 500? a lot of things can go wrong. When stories are told of circling at 100 ft but it's safe because you are on final to a field - was this a field you landed in before? have any of the conditions changed? Is the wind gradient exactly as it was 3 years ago when last you were here?

There is also an attempt to conflate the nanny state with competition rules.. This is specious. I am against helmet laws for motorcycles, even though I wear one every time I get on a bike. It's your brain. But in an organized motorcycle race, helmets are absolutely required. That isn't a "nanny state", and I'm not against it. Some motorcycle racers will argue they don't want to wear a helmet - its hot, gets in the way of vision, they don't wear one when they ride on the street, and they aren't going to ride any differently. Nevertheless it is required. I'm against a hard deck and any other unnecessary rules for soaring flight. But in soaring competition, as in every other form of competition, there needs to be limits on the worst tolerable behavior, not for that individual but for others who do not share their values, so that rewards are not proportional to bodily risk taken.

"the ability to assess and manage risk" has but one final arbiter: the failure to manage it resulting in mayhem. The measuring stick for this is: are there more accidents in competition than in normal cross country flight? I believe the answer is yes, meaning the risks are either higher or not being managed. Is the accident rate in competition acceptable? I don't believe it is, as long as it is higher than non-competition flying. I gather that many of the participants posting here disagree, as most seem to oppose any rules changes that might affect safety. "Risk" in the above quote ought to be the risk that you might have to slow down to maintain adequate altitude, or might land out at a known good site with plenty of time to do an ordinary, proper pattern and land. It should not be risk of putting the glider in an unknown field in unknown weather conditions while severely stressed and pressed for time.

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

OK, my iPad makes it a PITA to do multiple quotes, this site adds to that.

I have a 22yo son, a 20yo daughter, I also have a wife coming up on 25 years of marriage although I have known her coming up on 30 years.
I have no death wish.
What do you win in a glider worlds......a Frikkin trophy?
Sheesh, the players on the losing team at the US football super ball get what, $50K? Today, a LIFETIME of glider contests won't even pay for entry fees let alone travel, etc.

Money is not the goal here.
Group recognition is not really worth it.
It is more personal goals.

As I have stated before, "rules can't fix stupid".
I will hasten to add that the recent death of Tomas is a sad thing, not what I am talking about. No, I don't want emails slamming me about that, I have posted my feelings here on that as well as PM's and emails.

I don't know what the answer is, obviously there is an issue. Sponsors into a a sport may change peeps ideas of what is acceptable.
In a way, I sorta have an issue with this. We need to fix the underlying issue before peeps deem it required to drop the safe standards even more.
Yes, I have spoken to "problem" pilots in a US contest.
Yes, I have spoken to CD's in a US contest about "problem pilots".
Yes, I have talked to other contestants in a US contest (to see if I was wrong, right, maybe a bit too sensitive).
Has anyone else here done so???

Pretty easy to sit behind a keyboard and spout stuff but not doing anything to help fix it.

Just my $0.02...........

PS, rules don't fix stupid, regardless of why stupid happened. Sometimes things happen, look for the pattern, either in the pilot or what they may they feel to gain doing (20/20 hindsight) stupid stuff.

Nuff said.......

[[email protected]]

The horse is dead on this topic (I think) - but I will say I was got a different interpretation...........

"but many among those consider taking occasional, considerable risks up to an including imminent chance of death part of soaring competition,"

I did not get that at all. There were people who did not like over regulation and other that were willing to accept more regulation, but wanted evidence.

No where did I get the feeling any comp pilots wanted to chance imminent death.

But the best/most civil RAS discussion I have read to date :) may the "Hard Deck" Rest in Peace :)

WH

[Kevin Christner]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:07:22 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> John's academic work is all about how poorly crafted regulations give bad incentives. Regulation isn't about "more" or "less" it's about "smart" vs. "dumb", the latter often giving bad incentives.
> John

John can't answer the well posed questions from others on whether his soaring regulations will be "smart" or "dumb" in practice. After some experience John will decide what is "smart" and "dumb" and then propose "more" and "better" regulations. Soon John will be the only one who understands the differential equations and SPSS runs required to interpret the "more" and "better" regulations. John will help the highest bidder of ClearNav or LX Nav program their CN3000 or LX 1,000,000. John will get rich. Hmm... this sounds like the kind of money the ACA "interpreters" are making that John so despises.

[[email protected]]

Looks to me like a grasp at a rule intended to slow down the fast guys, in the name of safety. For their children. So noble. Enthusiasm waned when it was shown the same guys would still win.
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:49:28 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:07:22 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > John's academic work is all about how poorly crafted regulations give bad incentives. Regulation isn't about "more" or "less" it's about "smart" vs. "dumb", the latter often giving bad incentives.
> > John
>
> John can't answer the well posed questions from others on whether his soaring regulations will be "smart" or "dumb" in practice. After some experience John will decide what is "smart" and "dumb" and then propose "more" and "better" regulations. Soon John will be the only one who understands the differential equations and SPSS runs required to interpret the "more" and "better" regulations. John will help the highest bidder of ClearNav or LX Nav program their CN3000 or LX 1,000,000. John will get rich. Hmm... this sounds like the kind of money the ACA "interpreters" are making that John so despises.

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:07:27 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:55:32 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?
> > >
> > > Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.
> > >
> > > I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.
> > >
> > > Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion
> > >
> > > John Cochrane
> >
> > No, I'm not kidding. However I have (unintentionally) exposed your rather considerable confirmation bias.
> >
> > I was responding to Jon's earlier stated idea to create a hard deck thousands of feet in the air.
> >
> > What I relish is the fact that it's all on me as PIC. I have to be disciplined enough to know when to say "screw this, I'm landing", or "screw this, I'm at Tatum bound for Portales, it's blue, there's cirrus, I'm unfamiliar with the terrain, it looks like the moon, I'm out of my element, I'm fatigued, I'm going to stay with the clouds and wait" (day 1, 2013 15s). I relish the fact that I know I am bigger & stronger than my own ego. That day my score sucked but the glider was safely in the box, still shiny. My tie down neighbor's... not so much.
> >
> > Back to the 500' thing: at 500' over a landable field, I'm landing. Duh. What the **** is going to happen in the 120 seconds between 500' and 250' that didn't happen in the last half hour? With about 99% probability... nothing at all.
> >
> > ND: The smart thing to do if the nannies do have their way is leave all that airspace out of your nav equipment and just fly your best game. You tag the airspace, well sucks to be you.
> >
> > I don't think we need the rule, I will oppose it if asked. My prediction is: if such a rule were adopted, it won't be 500' for very darned long.
> >
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Well, this discussion has been quite the education for me. Now this thread is only a sampling of about 10 pilots, but many among those consider taking occasional, considerable risks up to an including imminent chance of death part of soaring competition, because it has always been that way and they like it. I personally know a few pilots with similar attitudes towards the sport, but it is a small minority among the pilot community that I fly with.

No. You are an idiot, sir.

Evan Ludeman

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:07:27 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:55:32 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?
> > >
> > > Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.
> > >
> > > I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.
> > >
> > > Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion
> > >
> > > John Cochrane
> >
> > No, I'm not kidding. However I have (unintentionally) exposed your rather considerable confirmation bias.
> >
> > I was responding to Jon's earlier stated idea to create a hard deck thousands of feet in the air.
> >
> > What I relish is the fact that it's all on me as PIC. I have to be disciplined enough to know when to say "screw this, I'm landing", or "screw this, I'm at Tatum bound for Portales, it's blue, there's cirrus, I'm unfamiliar with the terrain, it looks like the moon, I'm out of my element, I'm fatigued, I'm going to stay with the clouds and wait" (day 1, 2013 15s). I relish the fact that I know I am bigger & stronger than my own ego. That day my score sucked but the glider was safely in the box, still shiny. My tie down neighbor's... not so much.
> >
> > Back to the 500' thing: at 500' over a landable field, I'm landing. Duh. What the **** is going to happen in the 120 seconds between 500' and 250' that didn't happen in the last half hour? With about 99% probability... nothing at all.
> >
> > ND: The smart thing to do if the nannies do have their way is leave all that airspace out of your nav equipment and just fly your best game. You tag the airspace, well sucks to be you.
> >
> > I don't think we need the rule, I will oppose it if asked. My prediction is: if such a rule were adopted, it won't be 500' for very darned long.
> >
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Well, this discussion has been quite the education for me. Now this thread is only a sampling of about 10 pilots, but many among those consider taking occasional, considerable risks up to an including imminent chance of death part of soaring competition, because it has always been that way and they like it. I personally know a few pilots with similar attitudes towards the sport, but it is a small minority among the pilot community that I fly with.
>
> An interesting side line to the discussion is the notion that safety is a binary quantity: you either are, or are not safe in a certain situation. I view it much more as a continuum from almost safe to damned dangerous. It stems directly from the margin for error allowed at any moment. That margin for error must include errors due to pilot skill, weather conditions, other aircraft, and the unknown unknowns. You can affect only the first of those. If the margin for error is large (high, clear benign weather, etc.) the you are relatively safe. If the margin for error is allowed to go very low (circling at 400 ft over a field you've never landed in) the slightest of errors of any kind - not just pilot skill - can break through the margin to calamity.
>
> Is circling at 2000 ft safe? Relatively. At 1000? not as much. At 500? a lot of things can go wrong. When stories are told of circling at 100 ft but it's safe because you are on final to a field - was this a field you landed in before? have any of the conditions changed? Is the wind gradient exactly as it was 3 years ago when last you were here?
>
> There is also an attempt to conflate the nanny state with competition rules. This is specious. I am against helmet laws for motorcycles, even though I wear one every time I get on a bike. It's your brain. But in an organized motorcycle race, helmets are absolutely required. That isn't a "nanny state", and I'm not against it. Some motorcycle racers will argue they don't want to wear a helmet - its hot, gets in the way of vision, they don't wear one when they ride on the street, and they aren't going to ride any differently. Nevertheless it is required. I'm against a hard deck and any other unnecessary rules for soaring flight. But in soaring competition, as in every other form of competition, there needs to be limits on the worst tolerable behavior, not for that individual but for others who do not share their values, so that rewards are not proportional to bodily risk taken.
>
> "the ability to assess and manage risk" has but one final arbiter: the failure to manage it resulting in mayhem. The measuring stick for this is: are there more accidents in competition than in normal cross country flight? I believe the answer is yes, meaning the risks are either higher or not being managed. Is the accident rate in competition acceptable? I don't believe it is, as long as it is higher than non-competition flying. I gather that many of the participants posting here disagree, as most seem to oppose any rules changes that might affect safety. "Risk" in the above quote ought to be the risk that you might have to slow down to maintain adequate altitude, or might land out at a known good site with plenty of time to do an ordinary, proper pattern and land. It should not be risk of putting the glider in an unknown field in unknown weather conditions while severely stressed and pressed for time.

You are very good at twisting others' words and thoughts to your own purposes. This doesn't make you particularly insightful, nor correct.

To some of us, it also makes you appear rather unpleasant company and a trifle dim :-).

If you can't trust yourself to be bigger than your own ego, if you cannot make the decisions to 1) quit racing and 2) quit soaring/start landing at appropriate times on your own, then you simply shouldn't race. My opinion If you and your friends want to create a race based on what you all agree is a safe space in the sky to cover for this fault, have at it. Or maybe you can just time your best three climbs of the day over the home airport and call that your test of soaring skill. I don't particularly care.

I do care that you continue to misrepresent my views and those of others that you do not agree with. That really needs to stop.

Evan Ludeman

[Tango Eight]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:07:27 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:55:32 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?
> > >
> > > Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.
> > >
> > > I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.
> > >
> > > Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion
> > >
> > > John Cochrane
> >
> > No, I'm not kidding. However I have (unintentionally) exposed your rather considerable confirmation bias.
> >
> > I was responding to Jon's earlier stated idea to create a hard deck thousands of feet in the air.
> >
> > What I relish is the fact that it's all on me as PIC. I have to be disciplined enough to know when to say "screw this, I'm landing", or "screw this, I'm at Tatum bound for Portales, it's blue, there's cirrus, I'm unfamiliar with the terrain, it looks like the moon, I'm out of my element, I'm fatigued, I'm going to stay with the clouds and wait" (day 1, 2013 15s). I relish the fact that I know I am bigger & stronger than my own ego. That day my score sucked but the glider was safely in the box, still shiny. My tie down neighbor's... not so much.
> >
> > Back to the 500' thing: at 500' over a landable field, I'm landing. Duh. What the **** is going to happen in the 120 seconds between 500' and 250' that didn't happen in the last half hour? With about 99% probability... nothing at all.
> >
> > ND: The smart thing to do if the nannies do have their way is leave all that airspace out of your nav equipment and just fly your best game. You tag the airspace, well sucks to be you.
> >
> > I don't think we need the rule, I will oppose it if asked. My prediction is: if such a rule were adopted, it won't be 500' for very darned long.
> >
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Well, this discussion has been quite the education for me. Now this thread is only a sampling of about 10 pilots, but many among those consider taking occasional, considerable risks up to an including imminent chance of death part of soaring competition, because it has always been that way and they like it. I personally know a few pilots with similar attitudes towards the sport, but it is a small minority among the pilot community that I fly with.
>
> An interesting side line to the discussion is the notion that safety is a binary quantity: you either are, or are not safe in a certain situation. I view it much more as a continuum from almost safe to damned dangerous. It stems directly from the margin for error allowed at any moment. That margin for error must include errors due to pilot skill, weather conditions, other aircraft, and the unknown unknowns. You can affect only the first of those. If the margin for error is large (high, clear benign weather, etc.) the you are relatively safe. If the margin for error is allowed to go very low (circling at 400 ft over a field you've never landed in) the slightest of errors of any kind - not just pilot skill - can break through the margin to calamity.
>
> Is circling at 2000 ft safe? Relatively. At 1000? not as much. At 500? a lot of things can go wrong. When stories are told of circling at 100 ft but it's safe because you are on final to a field - was this a field you landed in before? have any of the conditions changed? Is the wind gradient exactly as it was 3 years ago when last you were here?
>
> There is also an attempt to conflate the nanny state with competition rules. This is specious. I am against helmet laws for motorcycles, even though I wear one every time I get on a bike. It's your brain. But in an organized motorcycle race, helmets are absolutely required. That isn't a "nanny state", and I'm not against it. Some motorcycle racers will argue they don't want to wear a helmet - its hot, gets in the way of vision, they don't wear one when they ride on the street, and they aren't going to ride any differently. Nevertheless it is required. I'm against a hard deck and any other unnecessary rules for soaring flight. But in soaring competition, as in every other form of competition, there needs to be limits on the worst tolerable behavior, not for that individual but for others who do not share their values, so that rewards are not proportional to bodily risk taken.
>
> "the ability to assess and manage risk" has but one final arbiter: the failure to manage it resulting in mayhem. The measuring stick for this is: are there more accidents in competition than in normal cross country flight? I believe the answer is yes, meaning the risks are either higher or not being managed. Is the accident rate in competition acceptable? I don't believe it is, as long as it is higher than non-competition flying. I gather that many of the participants posting here disagree, as most seem to oppose any rules changes that might affect safety. "Risk" in the above quote ought to be the risk that you might have to slow down to maintain adequate altitude, or might land out at a known good site with plenty of time to do an ordinary, proper pattern and land. It should not be risk of putting the glider in an unknown field in unknown weather conditions while severely stressed and pressed for time.

You are very good at twisting others' words and thoughts to your own purposes. This doesn't make you particularly insightful, nor correct.

To some of us, it also makes you appear rather unpleasant company and a trifle dim :-).

If you can't trust yourself to be bigger than your own ego, if you cannot make the decisions to 1) quit racing and 2) quit soaring/start landing at appropriate times on your own, then you simply shouldn't race. If you and your friends want to create a race based on what you all agree is a safe space in the sky to cover for this fault, have at it. Or maybe you can just time your best three climbs of the day over the home airport and call that your test of soaring skill. I don't particularly care.

I do care that you continue to misrepresent my views and those of others that you do not agree with. That really needs to stop.

Evan Ludeman

(apologies for multiple/deleted posts. One off color remark, one typo)

[ND]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:49:28 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:07:22 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > John's academic work is all about how poorly crafted regulations give bad incentives. Regulation isn't about "more" or "less" it's about "smart" vs. "dumb", the latter often giving bad incentives.
> > John
>
> John can't answer the well posed questions from others on whether his soaring regulations will be "smart" or "dumb" in practice. After some experience John will decide what is "smart" and "dumb" and then propose "more" and "better" regulations. Soon John will be the only one who understands the differential equations and SPSS runs required to interpret the "more" and "better" regulations. John will help the highest bidder of ClearNav or LX Nav program their CN3000 or LX 1,000,000. John will get rich. Hmm... this sounds like the kind of money the ACA "interpreters" are making that John so despises.

don't be a prat. we were having a civil discussion.

[ND]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:07:27 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:15:10 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
> > On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 10:55:32 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
> > > T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.
> > >
> > >
> > > Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?
> > >
> > > Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.
> > >
> > > I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.
> > >
> > > Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion
> > >
> > > John Cochrane
> >
> > No, I'm not kidding. However I have (unintentionally) exposed your rather considerable confirmation bias.
> >
> > I was responding to Jon's earlier stated idea to create a hard deck thousands of feet in the air.
> >
> > What I relish is the fact that it's all on me as PIC. I have to be disciplined enough to know when to say "screw this, I'm landing", or "screw this, I'm at Tatum bound for Portales, it's blue, there's cirrus, I'm unfamiliar with the terrain, it looks like the moon, I'm out of my element, I'm fatigued, I'm going to stay with the clouds and wait" (day 1, 2013 15s). I relish the fact that I know I am bigger & stronger than my own ego. That day my score sucked but the glider was safely in the box, still shiny. My tie down neighbor's... not so much.
> >
> > Back to the 500' thing: at 500' over a landable field, I'm landing. Duh. What the **** is going to happen in the 120 seconds between 500' and 250' that didn't happen in the last half hour? With about 99% probability... nothing at all.
> >
> > ND: The smart thing to do if the nannies do have their way is leave all that airspace out of your nav equipment and just fly your best game. You tag the airspace, well sucks to be you.
> >
> > I don't think we need the rule, I will oppose it if asked. My prediction is: if such a rule were adopted, it won't be 500' for very darned long.
> >
> > Evan Ludeman / T8
>
> Well, this discussion has been quite the education for me. Now this thread is only a sampling of about 10 pilots, but many among those consider taking occasional, considerable risks up to an including imminent chance of death part of soaring competition, because it has always been that way and they like it. I personally know a few pilots with similar attitudes towards the sport, but it is a small minority among the pilot community that I fly with.
>
> An interesting side line to the discussion is the notion that safety is a binary quantity: you either are, or are not safe in a certain situation. I view it much more as a continuum from almost safe to damned dangerous. It stems directly from the margin for error allowed at any moment. That margin for error must include errors due to pilot skill, weather conditions, other aircraft, and the unknown unknowns. You can affect only the first of those. If the margin for error is large (high, clear benign weather, etc.) the you are relatively safe. If the margin for error is allowed to go very low (circling at 400 ft over a field you've never landed in) the slightest of errors of any kind - not just pilot skill - can break through the margin to calamity.
>
> Is circling at 2000 ft safe? Relatively. At 1000? not as much. At 500? a lot of things can go wrong. When stories are told of circling at 100 ft but it's safe because you are on final to a field - was this a field you landed in before? have any of the conditions changed? Is the wind gradient exactly as it was 3 years ago when last you were here?
>
> There is also an attempt to conflate the nanny state with competition rules. This is specious. I am against helmet laws for motorcycles, even though I wear one every time I get on a bike. It's your brain. But in an organized motorcycle race, helmets are absolutely required. That isn't a "nanny state", and I'm not against it. Some motorcycle racers will argue they don't want to wear a helmet - its hot, gets in the way of vision, they don't wear one when they ride on the street, and they aren't going to ride any differently. Nevertheless it is required. I'm against a hard deck and any other unnecessary rules for soaring flight. But in soaring competition, as in every other form of competition, there needs to be limits on the worst tolerable behavior, not for that individual but for others who do not share their values, so that rewards are not proportional to bodily risk taken.
>
> "the ability to assess and manage risk" has but one final arbiter: the failure to manage it resulting in mayhem. The measuring stick for this is: are there more accidents in competition than in normal cross country flight? I believe the answer is yes, meaning the risks are either higher or not being managed. Is the accident rate in competition acceptable? I don't believe it is, as long as it is higher than non-competition flying. I gather that many of the participants posting here disagree, as most seem to oppose any rules changes that might affect safety. "Risk" in the above quote ought to be the risk that you might have to slow down to maintain adequate altitude, or might land out at a known good site with plenty of time to do an ordinary, proper pattern and land. It should not be risk of putting the glider in an unknown field in unknown weather conditions while severely stressed and pressed for time.

I think you may be dramatizing this. not every off-field landing comes with a case of mild PTSD. in competition, they rarely occur at a known, and previously scouted location. some are stressful, yes. but i've had many that were totally benign.

flying gliders means that you are inherently at risk for putting a glider into a field every time you fly. the ability to assess and manage risk has everything to do with landing out. it's maybe the most important ability a cross country or competition pilot can have. its also just as critical for local pilots. the fields that they may have to land in are much more familiar, but the local pilot is less practiced at off-field landings.

Evan is right. each pilot has the responsibility to use sound judgement to hang it up and get the glider safely on the ground.

[Papa3[_2_]]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 5:07:27 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
>
>
> Well, this discussion has been quite the education for me [snip] The measuring stick for this is: are there more accidents in competition than in normal cross country flight? I believe the answer is yes, meaning the risks are either higher or not being managed.

..............

I agree that this is a very interesting and useful thread. Regarding the above comment about racing being more dangerous, I actually believe the answer is "yes", there are more accidents in competition soaring. I just don't believe it is related only or predominantly to "points" in anything other than the broadest sense.

This marks my 30th year of racing (hey, I started young), and on balance it's been an amazing journey. One comment you'll hear over and over again goes something like this: "I wouldn't have even taken the glider out of the box on a day like today, yet we just did a 200K task. WOW that was fun!" I can vividly recall a few competition days like that which were incredibly satisfying.

But therein lies the rub. As soon as we fly on anything but the most straightforward, reliable, benign days, we increase the likelihood of landouts (at least those of us who don't have motors). In many parts of the country, fields are not as plentiful or as big as we'd like, and there are rocks, posts, pipes and all sorts of other nasty things hiding in them that can damage our gliders. There are also wires, trees, fences, and other things that can snatch us out of the air and damage the pilot if we misjudge.

Since the decision (or indecision) that leads to attempted landings in marginal fields (for example) typically happen a long time prior to the final event, it suggests to me that we all need to take a big step back to understand the broader risk equation and what we are personally willing to accept or not accept. For example, a good friend of mine who is a competent racing pilot pretty much decided 10 years ago that he will not risk a field landout. Period. That means he’s unlikely to win a contest with a lot of weak weather, yet he still races and enjoys winning some days. I’ve personally made a lot of decisions in the last few years that took me out of the running on any given day (not flying through a heavy rain shower on the ridge, not overflying a 20 mile forest even though there were a few decent looking clouds on the direct route), and I’m happy with those decisions.

In the business world, we talk about Organizational Change Management when we feel the need to make major changes to how a company (or other entity) “works.� One of the accepted truths is that OCM is hard – much harder than just writing rules like “you will not remove safety guards on cutting equipment.� The biggest challenge is communication and education and getting buy-in. In the US, I think the safety talks before flying were a good idea, but the quality and message are pretty variable. If we really want to make it safer, then we ought to invest in communications (high quality video recordings for example along the lines of the ones that Sporty’s or King Schools articulating a few key messages in digestable chunks). Another option is to put a Personal Limits checklist into contest packages (landout, lowest climb, weather minima) and ask pilots to fill them out before the first day and hand them in.. Then, spot check a few during the course of the contest and have the CD/CM call out people who are violating their own stated rules. It’s a culture thing, and changing behavior is just plain hard.

FWIW – I think the above efforts would be a much more valuable contribution from our various competition organizations (Rules Committee, Team Selection Committee, etc.) than continuously debating and fine tuning scoring rules and such.

Erik Mann (P3)

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 12:14:40 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:

> I can't speak for John's idea, but the hard deck I was think of would break that chain back when you could do something about it.

I've been skeptical of the idea that losing speed points will change low save behavior once it happens - the inconvenience and risk of landing out in that moment seems to me to be the more important factors.

This is a slightly different take on the argument - and somewhat similar to the logic associated with low finish penalties. Can you create a penalty incentive that is a realistic inducement for pilots to climb a little higher, or glide a little flatter, to avoid ending up hazardously low and struggling?

I think the answer for the two decisions is decidedly different. On final glides over a known distance to a known finish height, a penalty gradient can specifically offset the points spent to take extra time to climb slowly in the last thermal of the day. A steeper penalty gradient can even influence the probabilistic assessment of a pilot contemplating leaving a slow-ish climb in hope of finding a better one in the limited number of miles on the way home.

On the other hand, on-course decisions are much less certain. The distance to the next thermal is much more uncertain and (depending on where you fly) the altitude you don't want to get below because you'll need to slow way below McCready speed is much higher than 500'.

Flying in the Great Basin there are places where pilots start dialing back at 3-4,000 AGL. Even in flatland soaring I don't know of many pilots who are steaming ahead at 90 knots at 1,500' AGL absent a dust-devil in the next mile or two. So, what pilot is going to take extra turns in a thermal at 5,000 AGL in anticipation of potentially getting committed to landing out at 500' instead of 350' some 35 miles ahead? Even a pilot who's down to 2,000' AGL over the prairie wouldn't (it seems to me) make different decisions because they perceive they'd have a fraction of a mile (from the 500'-350' difference) less range to search for lift before a landout. My limit for giving up on pressing on is closer to 1,000 than 350' so for decision-making purposes I'm above the Hard Deck, not below it.

The "stop the dangerous decision chain before it starts" argument doesn't seem to me to work - at least not with a 500' hard deck. You'd need more like 1500' feet or more in the east and something like 2-3,000' in a lot of places out west. If people are not up for the notion of a hard deck at 500' it's hard to imagine anyone getting excited about one high enough to alter the decisions that (only in a probabilistic sense) matter.

Andy Blackburn
9B

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 7:09:13 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 12:14:40 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
>
> > I can't speak for John's idea, but the hard deck I was think of would break that chain back when you could do something about it.
>
> I've been skeptical of the idea that losing speed points will change low save behavior once it happens - the inconvenience and risk of landing out in that moment seems to me to be the more important factors.
>
> This is a slightly different take on the argument - and somewhat similar to the logic associated with low finish penalties. Can you create a penalty incentive that is a realistic inducement for pilots to climb a little higher, or glide a little flatter, to avoid ending up hazardously low and struggling?
>
> I think the answer for the two decisions is decidedly different. On final glides over a known distance to a known finish height, a penalty gradient can specifically offset the points spent to take extra time to climb slowly in the last thermal of the day. A steeper penalty gradient can even influence the probabilistic assessment of a pilot contemplating leaving a slow-ish climb in hope of finding a better one in the limited number of miles on the way home.
>
> On the other hand, on-course decisions are much less certain. The distance to the next thermal is much more uncertain and (depending on where you fly) the altitude you don't want to get below because you'll need to slow way below McCready speed is much higher than 500'.
>
> Flying in the Great Basin there are places where pilots start dialing back at 3-4,000 AGL. Even in flatland soaring I don't know of many pilots who are steaming ahead at 90 knots at 1,500' AGL absent a dust-devil in the next mile or two. So, what pilot is going to take extra turns in a thermal at 5,000 AGL in anticipation of potentially getting committed to landing out at 500' instead of 350' some 35 miles ahead? Even a pilot who's down to 2,000' AGL over the prairie wouldn't (it seems to me) make different decisions because they perceive they'd have a fraction of a mile (from the 500'-350' difference) less range to search for lift before a landout. My limit for giving up on pressing on is closer to 1,000 than 350' so for decision-making purposes I'm above the Hard Deck, not below it.
>
> The "stop the dangerous decision chain before it starts" argument doesn't seem to me to work - at least not with a 500' hard deck. You'd need more like 1500' feet or more in the east and something like 2-3,000' in a lot of places out west. If people are not up for the notion of a hard deck at 500' it's hard to imagine anyone getting excited about one high enough to alter the decisions that (only in a probabilistic sense) matter.
>
> Andy Blackburn
> 9B

As I have stated on multiple occasions up thread, the 500 ft deck might help back east where the whole contest is run below 2000 ft and landing sites are plentiful, it will do nothing in the Great Basin where landing sites are 50 miles apart and altitudes needed are 5000'+ AGL. No one (well - very few) circle at 500 ft out here. If you are 2000' above the valley, you are already 2000' below the ridges where the lift is, 10'000 ft below the clouds where the strong lift is, likely going down, and if you spend an hour digging out you certainly won't be on the podium that day.

Yet the problem of taking big risks to win still exists. Sometimes in the form of a final glide very low over forest or water, this is more of a problem at Truckee than Minden. On a return to Minden if you can clear the ridges from any direction you will make the airport. But also in big excursions way to the back of an AAT towards attractive clouds but where no landing site exists should the clouds be unproductive. To provide any meaningful limit, the hard deck would be high (not 1500', potentially many thousands of feet), but limited to areas that are unlandable. Nowhere would it be 500' AGL. As you say, out here, 500' AGL can be an hour away from where I am now even with no lift.

Knauff says 1 of 10 off field landings result in a broken glider. That may be true in eastern farm fields, in much the Nevada desert it is 1 in 5 or probably worse. There isn't much open space and most of what there is, is unlandable without damage. Many of the charted airports are unlandable with an 18m glider. Some are landable one year (because they have cut the bordering sage brush that Spring) and not the next. You do not know until you visit them on the ground, or your wingtip catches.

Since T8 is reverting to the ad hominem attacks, I'll assume I've won the logical argument :). His views are clearly stated and speak for themselves - I don't need to twist them. It is a difference in philosophy between: the pilot takes any risk they like any may win if they survive, or the contest rules enforce a minimum acceptable risk. These are values, and like most values are not provably right or wrong, but arrived at by consensus of the population.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

The 2000' AGL finish at Truckee amounts to a very good incentive for final glides over lake Tahoe -- and is intended that way. If you don't have 2000' extra in the bank, there is just no point to starting the journey. I think Sergio had this specifically in mind.

John Cochrane

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Yes, a lot of the point of hard deck is to move the whole decision-making chain upward. Now you treat 2000' AGL as you used to treat 1000' AGL, at least for sporting purposes.

On whether it actually will change behavior, this thread has produced a classic example of cognitive dissonance -- holding two contrary ideas in mind at one time.

A) No pilot is so dumb they're thinking about points below 1000'. (Both positive and negative -- the lure of getting home is so strong they will screw around down low without points, and pilots are so sensible they wouldn't screw around down low just for points)

B) Pilots will spend all their time watching the instruments trying to figure out if they have busted the minimum. Just to draw out the logic, that behavior only results if you think that pilots indeed are concerned entirely about points, and making all decisions at 550 feet with that in mind.

General: We have spent too much time on "low saves." That's really not the issue. As I looked at many traces of off field landing accidents in contests, what's clearly going on is very low and late decision making. Whether hoping for a low save or for other reasons, failing to follow the usual advice that below 600 feet forget about everything else and land is the key issue. In not one of the traces I have seen - which all ended in damage -- did the pilot start a sensible downwind at 600 feet, base, final. It's all mad dash low altitude and low speed maneuvering.


John Cochrane

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 10:14:59 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
> The 2000' AGL finish at Truckee amounts to a very good incentive for final glides over lake Tahoe -- and is intended that way. If you don't have 2000' extra in the bank, there is just no point to starting the journey. I think Sergio had this specifically in mind.
>
> John Cochrane

At Truckee, the problem with the 8000 msl finish line is that at that time of day you are nearly guaranteed of being able to climb up to the finish, if you make it into the Martis valley out of Lake Tahoe. This has been done a number of times in contests, proving that the finish line height alone is not a deterrent. My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win. I'm not adverse to anyone testing the water there, but would prefer not compete with those willing to give it a go. There is never lift over the lake, so the only skill being tested is the ability to ridge soar on an irregular ridge in weak lift, bound by rocks, with no option except a water landing. That is a risk that some may want to manage, but most don't.

[Steve Koerner]

Jon Fitch: You are burdened with a view of off-field landing that is distorted. I can see that in many things you've been writing and suggesting. We should have a separate thread about how to pick fields and make good off-field landings. I know a guy that has made maybe 75 or more off field landings on farm fields, pastures, parking lots, golf courses, gas stations, backyards, roads, and dry lakes. He's a lucky damn ******* for sure but the only off-airport damage he's ever had is a tweaked gear once (which still worked) due to a deep track in a circle field. Landing off field is just part of soaring. Actually, it's a fun part of soaring.

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

Jon: I stand corrected. Silly me, having only flown two weeks out of Truckee, the idea of squaring over the pass and then thermaling up to finish at the hot rocks never occurred to me. Yes

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

[MNLou]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 2:12:32 PM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
>Landing off field is just part of soaring.

I agree Steve - every time one takes off, they need to be prepared for an off field landing.

>Actually, it's a fun part of soaring.

Not for me - besides the increased risk, it is a total pain in the ass. Time, retrieve, disassembly in a field, etc. Did I mention lost contest points:)

I think the risk of landing out is a key "turn off" for potential soaring pilots and potential contest pilots. (Maybe#1.)

I am a huge fan of the training one gets through the SSA Badge process.

Lou

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 1:55:11 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
>My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win.

How big a radius would you need at Market Lake to keep the low guys from attempting to go straight to the back side of Martis Peak for a climb to get high enough to make the steering turn? 10-15 miles? If you set that radius would anybody risk going further west (hugging the outside of the steering turn radius) if they were below 10,200'? If it's 10,200' with a big radius do you have to hold 10,200' everywhere within the radius? The gets you to about 1 mile from the finish.

An alternate approach might be a 10,500' finish height with a 15 mile radius, though I expect that might create it's own challenges. That would let you finish on the east side of Mt Rose and land at Carson.

9B

[Andy Blackburn[_3_]]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 4:16:47 PM UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 1:55:11 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> >My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win.
>
> How big a radius would you need at Market Lake to keep the low guys from attempting to go straight to the back side of Martis Peak for a climb to get high enough to make the steering turn? 10-15 miles? If you set that radius would anybody risk going further west (hugging the outside of the steering turn radius) if they were below 10,200'? If it's 10,200' with a big radius do you have to hold 10,200' everywhere within the radius? The gets you to about 1 mile from the finish.
>
> An alternate approach might be a 10,500' finish height with a 15 mile radius, though I expect that might create it's own challenges. That would let you finish on the east side of Mt Rose and land at Carson.
>
> 9B

Marlette Lake (autocorrect - smh).

[jfitch]

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 1:55:11 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
> >My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win.
>
> How big a radius would you need at Market Lake to keep the low guys from attempting to go straight to the back side of Martis Peak for a climb to get high enough to make the steering turn? 10-15 miles? If you set that radius would anybody risk going further west (hugging the outside of the steering turn radius) if they were below 10,200'? If it's 10,200' with a big radius do you have to hold 10,200' everywhere within the radius? The gets you to about 1 mile from the finish.
>
> An alternate approach might be a 10,500' finish height with a 15 mile radius, though I expect that might create it's own challenges. That would let you finish on the east side of Mt Rose and land at Carson.
>
> 9B

The steering turn needn't be very big at all. There is the possibility of tree topping Brockway, then climbing out and going back to Marlette, but it's a long way back, would require a pretty good climb likely near Mt Rose, and you'd be unlikely to win anything doing that. You'd be adding about 35 uncredited miles to your distance. I'd go for a 2-3 mile radius, and you merely have to enter above the floor. That would keep someone from ridge soaring up into it, though the days that you could do that are very rare. On days when you could thermal directly off of Martis, get back to Marlette at 10..2 and back again, you would have been much better off getting 1000' higher at Seigel or Freel, and flying home. It isn't perfect, a very risk tolerant pilot might ridge soar the Elevator, squeak Brockway, happen to hit one of those days when the Martis valley is working better than anywhere else, go back and get the turnpoint when everyone else baled to Carson. That's going to be a rare day. I'm pretty familiar with this run, done it maybe 50 times? 100 times? not sure but a lot. I'd also have a penalty down to 9200', and a landout below that. The rational is that it is difficult to predict the sink over the Carson valley sometimes.

Steve - yes I have a distaste for off field landings. I don't like repairing gliders or flying repaired gliders. I've hung around the repair facility enough to see the effects of off field landings. Those guys love them - good for business. A nice grassy farm field is one thing, where I fly you rarely see those, if you do there is probably an airport nearby. The area we routinely fly over is about 20,000 square miles. It is not practical to research potential landing sites over that area, and they change dramatically from year to year. I have a hard time accepting that crashing is part of flying. Maybe we should require that anyone posting include their total repair bill for the last 10 years in the first line. That might put some perspective on the opinions :).

I try to keep the possibility of an off field landing at an unknown site a remote possibility. And of course my glider has a starter button as a backup plan :). When I sell it, I'd like to be able to claim N.D.H.