Seniors Contest

[Bob Fidler]

No scores or news about the crash, what's up? If Charly is not at the
contest, we may never hear.

[Lars P. Hansen]

...Huh? I suppose this is in the US? Please bear in mind that this is an
international newsgroup, they may even listen in from other planets as well
;-)

Lars Peder
DG-600, Denmark



--
--
Lars P. Hansen
"Bob Fidler" > wrote in message
...
> No scores or news about the crash, what's up? If Charly is not at the
> contest, we may never hear.
>
>

[BB]

It's up on the ssa website as of 11am cdt. Look for Charlie's coments
in the "news" section not the "results" section.

John Cochrane

[Ray Lovinggood]

The report, on the SSA website, www.ssa.org, is under
the 'Members Only' section, then under 'Contest Reports,'
then under 'Contest News.'

Maybe it can be found somewhere outside of the 'Members
Only' section? If so, I haven't been successful.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA



At 17:00 07 March 2005, Bb wrote:
>It's up on the ssa website as of 11am cdt. Look for
>Charlie's coments
>in the 'news' section not the 'results' section.
>
>John Cochrane
>
>

[[email protected]]

Yes, it appears that the contest reports are under the news section for
which you must log in with SSA member number and password.

I have written Dennis Wright a note suggesting that both the reports
and scores should be posted under the Contest Button so that anyone can
access the scores and reports.

I know that I enjoy reading contest reports and scores from other
contries and feel that we should make this information universally
available.

If you feel as I do, please write Dennis a note.

David Martin
ASW27 BV

[[email protected]]

It doesn't say anything anyway, just that there was a crash on practice
day.

[1MoClimb]

wrote:
> It doesn't say anything anyway, just that there was a crash on
practice
> day.

Here is a copy of Charlie's report, hope he doesn't mind:

Hi race fans 3/5/2005

Today was the practice day for the 2005 Seniors. We had a good March
soaring day and the lift took the guys to over 5,000 AGL. 57 Gliders
left the ground including guests for a 130-mile practice TAT task. No
clouds but good consistent lift made for an interesting day.

During the finishes Don Taylor in his DG-800S came in over the gate
with low energy. We thought he would proceed to land straight ahead but
instead he pulls up and heads for the pattern. Low and slow, he decides
to abandon the pattern and turns north to attempt a landing to the
south. During the downwind (now upwind) leg we see him stall twice and
then when he tries to make the turn to base the plane slips and goes
below the tree line nose first.

All of us are in terror as people began to run toward the last
sighting. Suddenly on 123.3 Don's voice comes over loud and clear "
I am down and OK not even a scratch!" We all finally take a breath of
relief and began to try and find him.

Don has crashed into the swamp behind some of the airport houses at the
north end of the runway. The wings are shredded but the fuselage is
undamaged, coming to rest in a cypress with an unbroken canopy some 5
feet above the swamp. Don was able to get out of the glider after once
again radioing the gate telling everyone he was OK. By this time
someone has called 911 and we can hear the sirens coming toward us.

Several pilots and crews slog through the swamp to get to Don, but he
had already walked out.

Everyone who has seen the wreak say it is a write-off. It will be a
very difficult retrieve but some guys are getting together tomorrow to
see what they can do. Don says the water right under the glider is
about 8" deep.

Back to the race: Wifred Krueger was the hot dog today, flying his
DG-808B 140 miles at 53 MPH raw to win the 2 =BD minimum time task. Gene
Rinke took second and Doug Jacobs flew to third. Dave Stevenson flying
his first Seniors took 4th, and Dick Butler got 5th.

The Senior contest is sold out this year and with the guests it is a
full airport. The weather looks like it will be good at least for the
next two days so we think we will get off to a good start.

Check right here at the SSA after each contest day for a complete
report.

See you at the airport,

Charlie

[BB]

I know it's a dead horse, but I can't help but point out that this is
exactly the sort of accident that would be a lot less frequent with a
500 foot one mile circle finish. 70-80 kts right over the center of the
airport at 51 feet is about the worst place you can be -- too much to
land straight, too little to do a pattern. 70 knots, 501 feet, one mile
out gives you a lot of time to think about what you're going to do
next. 70 knots, 300 feet, one mile out means you're not going to make
the flying finish at 500 feet, so you must roll. That decision is over,
now use the whole mile to figure out how to land.

Yes, pilots should think ahead to the pattern while also managing the
stress of a tight glide. Yes, they should decide to do a rolling
finish rather than focus entirely on the finishline and then wake up to
the fact they have to land the darn thing. But everyone knows this
advice, it's repeated over and over at the safety meetings, and we
still get a crash like this once every few years -- usually with much
worse results. A lower workload reduces the chances any of us will
screw up.


John Cochrane
BB

[Marc Ramsey]

BB wrote:
> I know it's a dead horse, but I can't help but point out that this is
> exactly the sort of accident that would be a lot less frequent with a
> 500 foot one mile circle finish. 70-80 kts right over the center of the
> airport at 51 feet is about the worst place you can be -- too much to
> land straight, too little to do a pattern. 70 knots, 501 feet, one mile
> out gives you a lot of time to think about what you're going to do
> next. 70 knots, 300 feet, one mile out means you're not going to make
> the flying finish at 500 feet, so you must roll. That decision is over,
> now use the whole mile to figure out how to land.

We've used a 1000 foot two mile circle finish at the last two Minden
regionals, which makes finishing a breeze. No problems, no complaints,
no near misses, no one trying 180s at 100 feet, plenty of time to get
everything put away, check that the water has finished dumping, make a
nice leisurely traffic scan, then sequence for landing.

On the other hand, at another recent regional contest I participated in,
a vocal subgroup insisted upon using a finish gate with a 50 foot floor.
There's nothing more exciting that dodging gliders coming from random
directions at 100+ knots, while trying to make something approximating a
normal pattern from my personal finish floor of 500 feet. That kind of
excitement I can live without...

Marc

[Kilo Charlie]

You must be aware that a pilot stalled and spun with water at 600'
attempting to get over the circle edge last season. So how is that safer???

Casey Lenox
Phoenix
KC

[Marc Ramsey]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> You must be aware that a pilot stalled and spun with water at 600'
> attempting to get over the circle edge last season. So how is that safer???

Maybe some of us are crazy, but we would rather stall and spin at 600
feet, than 200 feet, with or without water. Of course, my competitive
urges being what they are, if I had any doubts about being able to make
it to a 500 foot 1 mile finish, I'd be either still someplace farther
back, trying to climb higher, or sitting in a convenient field. I don't
want to win badly enough to do stupid things...

Marc

[Kilo Charlie]

Final line is this Marc...you cannot legislate good judgement....period. If
you don't believe it then just go drive around in your car for awhile where
there have already been put into place many laws in an attempt to do so.

It is not the pilots that are conscientious and cautious that are the
problem....no matter what the rules are they will do the right thing. There
will always be those that are poor decision makers in a pinch. I wish that
an instructor somewhere would have pointed this out to them but now that
they have their license they can demonstrate to the world their
inadequacies.

Casey

[BB]

I'm not aware of someone "stalling and spinning with water at 600'
attempting to get over the circle edge last season'. Where and when did
this happen? What finish configuration was in use?

I also can't imagine why. Under current US rules, even when there is a
finish circle, and even when the CD announces a substantial minimum
height for the circle, you are allowed to proceed directly to the field
and get a rolling finish for speed points. You might lose the 1 minute
of time between crossing the 1 mile circle and your landing, but that's
better than any thermaling will do for you. So there is not even any
competitive reason to be circling at 600' one mile out with water.

John Cochrane
BB

[g l i d e r s t u d]

A rolling finish was a severe penalty. Straight in or just safely
entering on base was out of the question. Buffeting, stalling then
spinning a partially loaded aft CG glider got me a GPS fix in the safer
circle finish. You could say that I didn't climb high enough, but I
climbed as high as I could and left the last thermal at best L/D.

[[email protected]]

Change the rules any way you like, we'll find some new way to put
ourselves in a world of hurt... ;-)

[[email protected]]

Change the rules any way you like, we'll find some new way to put
ourselves in a world of hurt... ;-)

[Steve Leonard]

g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
> A rolling finish was a severe penalty. Straight in or just safely
> entering on base was out of the question. Buffeting, stalling then
> spinning a partially loaded aft CG glider got me a GPS fix in the
safer
> circle finish. You could say that I didn't climb high enough, but I
> climbed as high as I could and left the last thermal at best L/D.

So, you consider a low altitude spin, from which you may not recover
(it has been known to happen, you know) less of a penalty than five
minutes added to your time on task? I have dumped the nose and crossed
the field boundary with full flaps and about 70 knots and taken a
rolling finish in the days of the low altitude finishes because I
didn't want to make a low energy pattern. Added time be damned.

"Straight in or a base entry was out of the question"? So, I take it
you landed in a field after this spin, rather than making it home? But
you got those speed points, man! Yep, GliderStud, indeed!

Please identify yourself, as I am not so sure I would like to share a
thermal with you.

Steve Leonard
Zulu Sierra
(Sometimes a Zuni 2, other times a 604)

PS: Also, would you all be so kind as to change the "subject" when you
change the subject? (see above) Thanks!

PPS: Guess what tomorrow is?

[Kilo Charlie]

This pilot is one that I have and would anyday share a thermal with. He is
an excellent racing pilot and would never put someone else in danger. He
has won more than one contest. To imply that he is some crazy unsafe wacko
is unfortunate. I would not reveal myself if I were him but would say that
I can see getting into the same situation. That IS the point
here.......with the so-called "safe" finish there are times when it is in
fact unsafe! To date I have not felt any safer with a single change that
has been made in the name of safety. I honestly think that from a pure
safety aspect the old start gate and 50' AGL finish line was safer than the
mega-gaggle cylinder starts we have now and the finishes into a circle from
varying angles. I don't argue the point that contest organization is
simpler with the cylinder however.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Marc Ramsey]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> Final line is this Marc...you cannot legislate good judgement....period. If
> you don't believe it then just go drive around in your car for awhile where
> there have already been put into place many laws in an attempt to do so.
>
> It is not the pilots that are conscientious and cautious that are the
> problem....no matter what the rules are they will do the right thing. There
> will always be those that are poor decision makers in a pinch. I wish that
> an instructor somewhere would have pointed this out to them but now that
> they have their license they can demonstrate to the world their
> inadequacies.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me in the least what sort of finish you use,
if I'm not participating. But, if I am participating, I find finish
gates incredibly unsafe, even if I personally do my more leisurely 1000+
foot finishes. I still have to dodge fast moving gliders as I get
lower, particularly with MATs. But, as soon as someone important
(rather than someone like me) gets killed as the direct result of a
finish gate, I'm sure the rules committee will be all over it...

Marc

[Steve Leonard]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> This pilot is one that I have and would anyday share a thermal with.
He is
> an excellent racing pilot and would never put someone else in danger.
He
> has won more than one contest. To imply that he is some crazy unsafe
wacko
> is unfortunate. I would not reveal myself if I were him but would
say that
> I can see getting into the same situation. That IS the point
> here.......with the so-called "safe" finish there are times when it
is in
> fact unsafe! To date I have not felt any safer with a single change
that
> has been made in the name of safety. I honestly think that from a
pure
> safety aspect the old start gate and 50' AGL finish line was safer
than the
> mega-gaggle cylinder starts we have now and the finishes into a
circle from
> varying angles. I don't argue the point that contest organization is

> simpler with the cylinder however.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix

Casey and Everyone else,

I agree completely that you simply cannot regulate judgement and
safety. Any rule that is created will have some edge that someone will
end up testing. The pilot being talked about had the option of a
rolling finish, but his competitive drive and the rule made him do
something he would not normally do. I think I know who this pilot is,
and yes, I have also raced with him and had a great time doing so. If
it sounded like I was implying he is a wacko, my apoligies to him.
That was not my intent. I was simply trying (apparently
unsuccessfully) to ask if he now thinks that he excercised good
judgement. Isn't that what this is all about? We have to excercise
good judgement, in spite of the rules. He used his judgement and maybe
let the rule influence his judgement in a not so good direction. End
result: In this case, an interesting story the person who experienced
it can tell.

I, too, hate seeing rules made "in the name of safety". It is one
person's opinion, and the opinon of as many other people that choose to
see it that way as the expressor. I miss the fast, low finishes. I
miss pilotage (heading out into 8 to 10 mile visibility, northbound out
of Monahans towards Seagraves, with no GPS or compass, with the first
road to be found about 25 miles out, according to the sectional). I
miss standing my 604 on its tip from over 10K AGL to try and photograph
only half of a half mile long runway. I am not at all fond of running
around at ever increasing speed near the top corner of a start cylinder
or at cloudbase because the top of the cylinder is above cloudbase.
All these things get the heart going and we must use our judgement as
to what we are willing to do.

Would we maybe be less unhappy with a rule if it wasn't put to us as
being a "safety improvement" but just "this is the way it is going to
be."?

Please, Casey, Don't Adjust my Meds! I really am a good guy!

Steve Leonard
ZS
Wichita, KS

[Bruce]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> Final line is this Marc...you cannot legislate good judgement....period. If
> you don't believe it then just go drive around in your car for awhile where
> there have already been put into place many laws in an attempt to do so.
>
> It is not the pilots that are conscientious and cautious that are the
> problem....no matter what the rules are they will do the right thing. There
> will always be those that are poor decision makers in a pinch. I wish that
> an instructor somewhere would have pointed this out to them but now that
> they have their license they can demonstrate to the world their
> inadequacies.
>
> Casey
>
>
Even the good ones among us occasionally screw up- sometimes they survive to
tell us about it. No point in name calling - I certainly never want to share
airspace with the guy who has never landed and said something along the lines of
"I did something really unwise there". The person who has never realised he
makes mistakes / exercises poor judgment is the most dangerous person you will
meet. No matter how well he/she flies.

Good judgment often comes from experience brought on by poor judgment -
legislation only guides those who want to listen.

Here a top pilot has effectively told us how he got into a very dangerous
situation - partly because of a rule designed to ensure his safety. We should
learn from it. Bottom line is to keep the pint of blue muck between your ears
on-line. I try to continuously evaluate my decisions to see if they are
deteriorating. If so - why am I getting tired or dehydrated, or not
concentrating. I don't fly contests but I can see how a hard race could get you
into a bad decision making mode - irrespecive of the rules to protect you.

[Marc Ramsey]

Bruce wrote:
> Here a top pilot has effectively told us how he got into a very
> dangerous situation - partly because of a rule designed to ensure his
> safety. We should learn from it. Bottom line is to keep the pint of blue
> muck between your ears on-line. I try to continuously evaluate my
> decisions to see if they are deteriorating. If so - why am I getting
> tired or dehydrated, or not concentrating. I don't fly contests but I
> can see how a hard race could get you into a bad decision making mode -
> irrespecive of the rules to protect you.

No, this isn't really an argument about rules or safety, it is an
argument about philosophy and ego. I agree fully with Casey and
everyone else that you can't "legislate good judgment". What we have
here, however, is the last vestiges of procedures that made some sense
when there was actual gate crews sitting on the ground and timing the
gliders as they finish. Well, we've been doing GPS finishes for several
years, yet some folks still need the rush of making that final red line
dive through the finish gate, despite the fact that it serves no
function that I can see other than stroking some egos. It's sort of
like when I was a kid, and thought it was cool to drive my Alfa at 120
MPH on empty highways in the middle of the night. It was a rush, but it
was also a pointless, stupid thing to do, even if I never managed to
kill myself or anyone else.

I've flown in enough contests to know that those few minutes after the
finish are when I'm going to be the least attentive to what is going on
around me, and I suspect there are quite a few other pilots in the same
state. Throw in a little dehydration, plus some bad luck, and the scene
ain't going to be pretty. I, for one, would rather blunder around for
the last few minutes of the flight at 60 knots and 500 feet, than 120
knots and 100 feet...

Marc

[Bruce]

Marc Ramsey wrote:
> Bruce wrote:
>
>> Here a top pilot has effectively told us how he got into a very
>> dangerous situation - partly because of a rule designed to ensure his
>> safety. We should learn from it. Bottom line is to keep the pint of
>> blue muck between your ears on-line. I try to continuously evaluate my
>> decisions to see if they are deteriorating. If so - why am I getting
>> tired or dehydrated, or not concentrating. I don't fly contests but I
>> can see how a hard race could get you into a bad decision making mode
>> - irrespecive of the rules to protect you.
>
>
> No, this isn't really an argument about rules or safety, it is an
> argument about philosophy and ego. I agree fully with Casey and
> everyone else that you can't "legislate good judgment". What we have
> here, however, is the last vestiges of procedures that made some sense
> when there was actual gate crews sitting on the ground and timing the
> gliders as they finish. Well, we've been doing GPS finishes for several
> years, yet some folks still need the rush of making that final red line
> dive through the finish gate, despite the fact that it serves no
> function that I can see other than stroking some egos. It's sort of
> like when I was a kid, and thought it was cool to drive my Alfa at 120
> MPH on empty highways in the middle of the night. It was a rush, but it
> was also a pointless, stupid thing to do, even if I never managed to
> kill myself or anyone else.
>
> I've flown in enough contests to know that those few minutes after the
> finish are when I'm going to be the least attentive to what is going on
> around me, and I suspect there are quite a few other pilots in the same
> state. Throw in a little dehydration, plus some bad luck, and the scene
> ain't going to be pretty. I, for one, would rather blunder around for
> the last few minutes of the flight at 60 knots and 500 feet, than 120
> knots and 100 feet...
>
> Marc
>
>
Hi Marc

No disagreement - just the observation that rules are not going to stop you, or
me or anyone else occasionally doing something stupid. Humans do that - we find
all sorts of reasons after the fact, but the fact remains.

[Kilo Charlie]

I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc. Your
basic premise is that the gate finish is unsafe. I disagree and feel that
it is safer than the alternatives presented to date.

Re your "testosterone" idea....yup you're correct.....I do enjoy watching
the ground rush by and my crew enjoys it too along with the spectators that
show up. We have made an already poor spectator sport into a truly horrible
one with some of these changes. I'm not looking to make it a Red Bull death
defying race but honestly think that it is the one single time in the race
that is nice to watch. Now if it were less safe than the other finishes I
would not argue to use it but as I said it is at least as safe. I challenge
you to present hard facts to counter that. If I'm wrong about that being
liked by the spectators then maybe you can explain why they can't keep
enough copies of UK Smokin' in production to satisfy all the orders.

Like you said.....you guys that are worried about the safety issues with the
current rules can by all means have your own races with each competitor
having their own separate start cylinder and the finish being a 2 mile 2000'
AGL minimum. Now THAT would be safe....but I won't be participating.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Marc Ramsey]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc. Your
> basic premise is that the gate finish is unsafe. I disagree and feel that
> it is safer than the alternatives presented to date.

We can argue about whether the recent Seniors accident was or was not a
gate mishap, I could go either way. But, the notion that cylinder
finishes are less safe than gate finishes seems to be unique to you and
some of your friends...

Marc

[bumper]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:WBNXd.22088$FM3.15711@fed1read02...
>I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc. Your
>basic premise is that the gate finish is unsafe. I disagree and feel that
>it is safer than the alternatives presented to date.
>
> Re your "testosterone" idea....yup you're correct.....I do enjoy watching
> the ground rush by and my crew enjoys it too along with the spectators
> that show up. We have made an already poor spectator sport into a truly
> horrible one with some of these changes. > Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix


Casey,

I'm in complete agreement. I don't fly contests, likely never will, but I
sure *used* to enjoy the contest finishes. What a shame they destroyed the
best part of contests for the spectators.

bumper
ZZ
Minden

[Eric Greenwell]

Kilo Charlie wrote:

> I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc.

How long have you been in the sport? At least one person has died
finishing with the conventional gate (Cal City), and there have been
many other accidents and very close calls.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kilo Charlie]

I've been flying for 34 years Eric and racing for 12. I see that you are
ranked 232 and I am 121....does that make me better able to judge racing
rules?! Let's talk about the facts and not get into a ****ing match about
experience.

I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others know
about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Marc Ramsey]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> I've been flying for 34 years Eric and racing for 12. I see that you are
> ranked 232 and I am 121....does that make me better able to judge racing
> rules?! Let's talk about the facts and not get into a ****ing match about
> experience.

I'm ranked 44, does that mean I win the ****ing match? 8^)

> I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others know
> about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

Do you think the recent Seniors accident was gate related, and if not,
why not?

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> I've been flying for 34 years Eric and racing for 12. I see that you are
> ranked 232 and I am 121....does that make me better able to judge racing
> rules?! Let's talk about the facts and not get into a ****ing match about
> experience.

My experience was not mentioned in the post - I was wondering about
yours. I still make no claim about my experience. I was responding to
your comment:

>> I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc.

I first assumed you had been racing for a while, but it then seemed
unlikely, since you weren't aware of finish gate problems. I'm surprised
you've raced for 12 years without witnessing or at least hearing about
accidents and close calls.

> I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others know
> about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

I've seen several gear up landings, at least once with pilots going
head-on at each other because one finished backwards, some slow speed
pullups leading to a scary low turn to final a whisker away from
cartwheeling, a pilot landing short in a rock-filled field because the
"rolling finish" didn't make it to the pavement. There's more that will
come to me after a bit, but those are some that I've witnessed.
Thankfully, no bad injuries or fatalities.

I'm with Marc - I think I'm safer with the new high finish cylinders
than the traditional ground-based gate. It was a thrill bombing through
it at 50 feet off the ground, but I'm over that now.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Gary Evans]

Another thought on this subject from a non-completing
pilots perspective is the additional complication brought
on by the fact that other recreational pilots (some
without radios) may also be in landing patterns. If
there were a way to run contests to eliminate this
possibility then it’s only an issue for the competing
pilots. Other wise it’s an issue for everyone using
the airport.



At 05:30 10 March 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
>Kilo Charlie wrote:
>> I've been flying for 34 years Eric and racing for
>>12. I see that you are
>> ranked 232 and I am 121....does that make me better
>>able to judge racing
>> rules?! Let's talk about the facts and not get into
>>a ****ing match about
>> experience.
>
>My experience was not mentioned in the post - I was
>wondering about
>yours. I still make no claim about my experience. I
>was responding to
>your comment:
>
> >> I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the
>>>gate finish Marc.
>
>I first assumed you had been racing for a while, but
>it then seemed
>unlikely, since you weren't aware of finish gate problems.
>I'm surprised
>you've raced for 12 years without witnessing or at
>least hearing about
>accidents and close calls.
>
>> I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps
>>that you or others know
>> about that you feel are a result of finish gates.
>
>I've seen several gear up landings, at least once with
>pilots going
>head-on at each other because one finished backwards,
>some slow speed
>pullups leading to a scary low turn to final a whisker
>away from
>cartwheeling, a pilot landing short in a rock-filled
>field because the
>'rolling finish' didn't make it to the pavement. There's
>more that will
>come to me after a bit, but those are some that I've
>witnessed.
>Thankfully, no bad injuries or fatalities.
>
>I'm with Marc - I think I'm safer with the new high
>finish cylinders
>than the traditional ground-based gate. It was a thrill
>bombing through
>it at 50 feet off the ground, but I'm over that now.
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[BB]

> I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others
know
> about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

A small sample of serious finish accidents.

1.
NTSB Identification: FTW94LA237 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 16, 1994 in LITTLEFIELD, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/12/1995
Aircraft: SCHWEIZER SGS 1-26E, registration: N33915
Injuries: 1 Serious.
WITNESSES SAID THE PILOT COMPLETED A GLIDER COMPETITION LOW AND SLOW AT
THE FINISH. THE PILOT TURNED LEFT ONTO THE DOWNWIND LEG, FOLLOWED BY A
STEEP LEFT TURN AND NOSE PITCH DOWN. IMPACT OCCURRED NOSE LOW STILL
TURNING LEFT.

2.
NTSB Identification: FTW86FRG30 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 32434.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, August 04, 1986 in UVALDE, TX
Aircraft: SCHLEICHER ASW-20, registration: N20TS
Injuries: 1 Serious.
ACFT WAS COMPETING IN THE NATL SOARING CHAMPIONSHIPS AND HAD JUST
CROSSED THE FINISH LINE AT 50' AGL AND 85 KNS A/S WHEN IT ENTERED A
MANEUVER TO REVERSE DIRECTION AND CLIMB TO PATTERN ALT FOR LANDING.
DURING THE TURN THE ACFT STALLED AND STRUCK A POWER LINE DURING THE
SUBSEQUENT DESCENT. AFTER IMPACT, THE ACFT SLID INTO A VEHICLE. THE PLT
MAY HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED BY OTHER ACFT OPERATING IN THE PATTERN.

3.
NTSB Identification: LAX90FA310 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 45117.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 02, 1990 in CALIFORNIA CITY, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/30/1992
Aircraft: Schempp-Hirth NIMBUS-2C, registration: N39285
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
THE PILOT WAS PARTICIPATING IN A ROUND-ROBIN SOARING CHAMPIONSHIP
CONTEST. WHEN THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT 2 MILES EAST OF THE FINISH LINE THE
PILOT RADIOED THAT HE WAS INBOUND. WHEN THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT 1/4 OF A
MILE EAST OF THE FINISH LINE WITNESSES OBSERVED ITS AIRSPEED APPEARED
TO BE LESS THAN NORMAL. AFTER CROSSING THE FINISH LINE THE GLIDER
ENTERED INTO A CLIMBING RIGHT TURN. WHEN THE GLIDER COMPLETED ABOUT A
180 DEGREE TURN, IT STALLED AND ENTERED INTO A SPIN. A GLIDER PILOT WHO
OVERTOOK THE ACCIDENT GLIDER REPORTED THAT THE ACCIDENT PILOT BEGAN TO
PREMATURELY DISPERSE HIS WATER BALLAST ABOUT 10 MILES EAST OF THE
AIRPORT FINISH LINE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE PILOT'S IMPROPER DECISION TO EXECUTE THE RAPID CLIMBING TURN
MANEUVER AT AN INSUFFICIENT AIRSPEED. CONTRIBUTING TO THIS ACCIDENT WAS
THE PREMATURE DUMPING OF THE GLIDER'S WATER BALLAST.

4.
NYC00LA171
On June 19, 2000, about 1630 Eastern Daylight Time, a Schempp-Hirth,
Ventus 2CM motorglider, N800PF, was substantially damaged while
maneuvering to land at the Warren-Sugarbush Airport, Warren, Vermont.
The certificated commercial pilot was seriously injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for
the personal local flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, the pilot was
participating in a glider race at the airport. The race was to be
conducted without motorized power and the motorglider was towed to
altitude.

According to the pilot, after crossing the finish line at the end of
the race, he received a radio call from the airport that the winds had
changed direction and landings were being conducted on Runway 22. The
pilot executed a 180-degree turn and entered the traffic pattern for
the runway. While turning base to final, the pilot was unable to stop
the turn with full opposite aileron due to turbulence. As the
motorglider descended, the pilot was able to level the wings, but was
90 degrees to the runway and "into the trees." The pilot raised the
nose of the glider to decrease airspeed, and the motorglider stalled,
impacting trees short of the runway.

The winds reported by an airport located about 13 miles east of the
accident, at 1651, were from 350 degrees at 7 knots.



Two more, not contest participants, but fatalities doing contest
finishes.

5.
NYC01FA071
HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On January 28, 2001, a Schempp-Hirth, Discus CS glider, N814CU, was
substantially damaged while attempting to land at Wurtsboro Airport,
Wurtsboro, New York. The certificated private pilot was fatally
injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal
flight. No flight plan had been filed for the local flight conducted
under 14 CFR Part 91.
......
The pilot performed a high-speed pass down runway 23, and either
touched the runway momentarily, or was very close to it. He then pulled
up to about 500 feet agl, and entered a left crosswind, followed by a
downwind for runway 23. The traffic pattern appeared normal to the
observers.

While on base leg, the glider was observed to enter a left turn prior
to having reached a position from which the turn to final would
normally have been made. The left turn increased in bank angle, the
nose dropped and the glider disappeared from view. Some of the
witnesses said the glider appeared slow and was in a nose up attitude.
The bank angle was estimated to be in excess of 60 degrees, and the
nose down attitude at least 45 degrees.
....

6. This was on the rest day of 15 meter nationals

NTSB Identification: FTW01LA179.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, August 12, 2001 in Uvalde, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 2/20/2002
Aircraft: PDPS PZL-Bielsko SZD-55-1, registration: N55VW
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The commercial pilot was completing the third leg of a soaring 300 km
triangle. The glider owner, who was in contact with the pilot via
radio, reported that the pilot stated he had the field in sight
approximately 8 miles from the airport. The glider entered the traffic
pattern for runway 15 and was turning base when the owner observed it
enter a spin. A witness reported that the glider banked, "appeared to
have stalled, and spiraled counter-clockwise" in a nose low attitude
into the ground. Another witness, located approximately a block from
the accident site, stated that she "looked up and saw the glider
spinning counter clockwise very fast and falling nose first." The
glider impacted the ground and came to rest approximately 1/4 mile from
the approach end of runway. The pilot had accumulated approximately 270
total glider flight hours and 5 flight hours in the same make and model
as the accident aircraft. No pre-impact anomalies were noted with the
glider during the examination.

(There was a low pass here too, though not mentioned in the official
report. I guess pilots are smart enough not to talk too much to the FAA
and NTSB!)


John Cochrane
BB

[Greg Arnold]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> John,
>
> Wow! Good job finding these. They are very enlightening.
>
> I did a high-speed low pass pullup 180 once. Just once.
> I was low energy on the last 30 degrees of turn back and didn't
> like it. Fortunately there was nobody around to see my cross-runway
> landing. I don't think I'll do it again.


Sounds like your "high-speed" wasn't that fast. If you didn't have
enough altitude to make a normal landing, something was wrong with your
technique.

[John Doe]

Mark,

I think what you are getting at is what we in the UK
call a control point, a final turnpoint that must be
rounded in the normal way, but is only maybe 5-10 km
from the airfield, each glider is a few hundred feet
(or more depending on the pilots saftey margins) up
at this point and after turning the control point,
competitors turn to the airfield and dive to a known
linear finish gate. There is generally no minimun
finish height so often the gate is crossed under 50
ft but as all competitors are coming in from a fixed
direction towards a small and clear area of land it
eliminates the vast majority of head to head at low
altitude issues and I've never seen congestion at a
control point myself (altough as my own competition
experience is rather limited I won't say it never happens).

As for non comp gliders, everywhere I've been competing
the daily briefing for non-comp pilots always stressed
the comps procedures as well as use of the radio to
ensure separation in launch, landing and finishing.
As long as the finish gate is suitably chosen to be
away from the main landing area and obstacles with
space to land after as well as an easy entry into circuit
for those with the speed to do so it can be both a
safe and an exciting way to finish without the artificial
complications of raised finish lines.

John,

Whilst some of those accidents are attributable
to finish gates, I'd certainly question your thinking
re: the last three.
Taking the Discus crash for example, in a Discus
(in which I have a reasonable if not spectacular amount
of time), 500' is adequate, if not totally comfortable,
for a decent enough circuit, that crash, as well as
the others, from the reports seem to be the whole 'slightly
low in the circuit leads to a poor turn leading to
a spin in' issue.
Where the blame in that lies is the topic for another
thread but that, like the other last three, does not
seem to be attributable directly to finish gate issues
as surely a pilot just making it over a 500' 1 mile
finish gate would be in exactly the same situation
as someone who has just got a few hundred feet of height
from a competition pullup?

The others seem to be 'insufficient speed, insufficient
time to recover from the spin', afaiks the same situation
as trying to scrabble over a start gate at 450' and
screwing up.

It's been said before but unfortunately you can't legislate
good judgement.

Cheers

Jamie Denton

At 18:30 10 March 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>John,
>
> Wow! Good job finding these. They are very enlightening.
>
> I did a high-speed low pass pullup 180 once. Just
>once.
>I was low energy on the last 30 degrees of turn back
>and didn't
>like it. Fortunately there was nobody around to see
>my cross-runway
>landing. I don't think I'll do it again.
>
> Other than this, it seems like the accidents involve
>other
>aircraft in the pattern. If they aren't part of the
>competition,
>that could be a big problem. One of our contest pilots
>mentioned
>the FAA X out the runway for some contests to prevent
>non-contest pilots
>from landing. He recalled this from one competition.
>
> I wonder about the cylinder finish with the center
>of the
>cylinder at the airport, however. Pardon me (not a
>contest pilot)
>but doesn't a remote cylinder or maybe a remote final
>turnpoint
>make more sense? Then everyone is coming from the
>same direction inbound.
>It seems like it is much easier to see others this
>way than during
>closure from random directions.
>
> Some remote entry point, perhaps? I'm sure this
>has been thought of and
>used before. Any comments on the results? Sure, this
>would cause
>congestion at the entry point, but I'd rather have
>congestion with
>other gliders at 500 feet than congestion with cars
>and kids and
>glide calculation and water AND head-on gliders at
>50 feet.
>
> But this is armchair from me. I'm interested in
>what you guys
>think, and if you've experienced remote finish points/cylinders...
>>
>By this I mean the 'competition' part is over at 500-1000
>feet
>and gliders enter the pattern at a well-known, same
>entry point.
>
>In article ,
>BB wrote:
>>> I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps
>>>that you or others
>>know
>>> about that you feel are a result of finish gates.
>>
>>A small sample of serious finish accidents.
>>
>>1.
>>NTSB Identification: FTW94LA237 .
>>The docket is stored in the Docket Management System
>>(DMS). Please
>>contact Public Inquiries
>>14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>>Accident occurred Saturday, July 16, 1994 in LITTLEFIELD,
>>TX
>>Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/12/1995
>>Aircraft: SCHWEIZER SGS 1-26E, registration: N33915
>>Injuries: 1 Serious.
>>WITNESSES SAID THE PILOT COMPLETED A GLIDER COMPETITION
>>LOW AND SLOW AT
>>THE FINISH. THE PILOT TURNED LEFT ONTO THE DOWNWIND
>>LEG, FOLLOWED BY A
>>STEEP LEFT TURN AND NOSE PITCH DOWN. IMPACT OCCURRED
>>NOSE LOW STILL
>>TURNING LEFT.
>>
>>2.
>>NTSB Identification: FTW86FRG30 .
>>The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 32434.
>>14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>>Accident occurred Monday, August 04, 1986 in UVALDE,
>>TX
>>Aircraft: SCHLEICHER ASW-20, registration: N20TS
>>Injuries: 1 Serious.
>>ACFT WAS COMPETING IN THE NATL SOARING CHAMPIONSHIPS
>>AND HAD JUST
>>CROSSED THE FINISH LINE AT 50' AGL AND 85 KNS A/S WHEN
>>IT ENTERED A
>>MANEUVER TO REVERSE DIRECTION AND CLIMB TO PATTERN
>>ALT FOR LANDING.
>>DURING THE TURN THE ACFT STALLED AND STRUCK A POWER
>>LINE DURING THE
>>SUBSEQUENT DESCENT. AFTER IMPACT, THE ACFT SLID INTO
>>A VEHICLE. THE PLT
>>MAY HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED BY OTHER ACFT OPERATING IN
>>THE PATTERN.
>>
>>3.
>>NTSB Identification: LAX90FA310 .
>>The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 45117.
>>14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>>Accident occurred Sunday, September 02, 1990 in CALIFORNIA
>>CITY, CA
>>Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/30/1992
>>Aircraft: Schempp-Hirth NIMBUS-2C, registration: N39285
>>Injuries: 1 Fatal.
>>THE PILOT WAS PARTICIPATING IN A ROUND-ROBIN SOARING
>>CHAMPIONSHIP
>>CONTEST. WHEN THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT 2 MILES EAST OF
>>THE FINISH LINE THE
>>PILOT RADIOED THAT HE WAS INBOUND. WHEN THE GLIDER
>>WAS ABOUT 1/4 OF A
>>MILE EAST OF THE FINISH LINE WITNESSES OBSERVED ITS
>>AIRSPEED APPEARED
>>TO BE LESS THAN NORMAL. AFTER CROSSING THE FINISH LINE
>>THE GLIDER
>>ENTERED INTO A CLIMBING RIGHT TURN. WHEN THE GLIDER
>>COMPLETED ABOUT A
>>180 DEGREE TURN, IT STALLED AND ENTERED INTO A SPIN.
>>A GLIDER PILOT WHO
>>OVERTOOK THE ACCIDENT GLIDER REPORTED THAT THE ACCIDENT
>>PILOT BEGAN TO
>>PREMATURELY DISPERSE HIS WATER BALLAST ABOUT 10 MILES
>>EAST OF THE
>>AIRPORT FINISH LINE.
>>
>>The National Transportation Safety Board determines
>>the probable
>>cause(s) of this accident as follows:
>>
>>THE PILOT'S IMPROPER DECISION TO EXECUTE THE RAPID
>>CLIMBING TURN
>>MANEUVER AT AN INSUFFICIENT AIRSPEED. CONTRIBUTING
>>TO THIS ACCIDENT WAS
>>THE PREMATURE DUMPING OF THE GLIDER'S WATER BALLAST.
>>
>>4.
>>NYC00LA171
>>On June 19, 2000, about 1630 Eastern Daylight Time,
>>a Schempp-Hirth,
>>Ventus 2CM motorglider, N800PF, was substantially damaged
>>while
>>maneuvering to land at the Warren-Sugarbush Airport,
>>Warren, Vermont.
>>The certificated commercial pilot was seriously injured.
>>Visual
>>meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan
>>was filed for
>>the personal local flight conducted under 14 CFR Part
>>91.
>>
>>According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector,
>>the pilot was
>>participating in a glider race at the airport. The
>>race was to be
>>conducted without motorized power and the motorglider
>>was towed to
>>altitude.
>>
>>According to the pilot, after crossing the finish line
>>at the end of
>>the race, he received a radio call from the airport
>>that the winds had
>>changed direction and landings were being conducted
>>on Runway 22. The
>>pilot executed a 180-degree turn and entered the traffic
>>pattern for
>>the runway. While turning base to final, the pilot
>>was unable to stop
>>the turn with full opposite aileron due to turbulence.
>>As the
>>motorglider descended, the pilot was able to level
>>the wings, but was
>>90 degrees to the runway and 'into the trees.' The
>>pilot raised the
>>nose of the glider to decrease airspeed, and the motorglider
>>stalled,
>>impacting trees short of the runway.
>>
>>The winds reported by an airport located about 13 miles
>>east of the
>>accident, at 1651, were from 350 degrees at 7 knots.
>>
>>
>>
>>Two more, not contest participants, but fatalities
>>doing contest
>>finishes.
>>
>>5.
>>NYC01FA071
>>HISTORY OF FLIGHT
>>
>>On January 28, 2001, a Schempp-Hirth, Discus CS glider,
>>N814CU, was
>>substantially damaged while attempting to land at Wurtsboro
>>Airport,
>>Wurtsboro, New York. The certificated private pilot
>>was fatally
>>injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed
>>for the personal
>>flight. No flight plan had been filed for the local
>>flight conducted
>>under 14 CFR Part 91.
>>.....
>>The pilot performed a high-speed pass down runway 23,
>>and either
>>touched the runway momentarily, or was very close to
>>it. He then pulled
>>up to about 500 feet agl, and entered a left crosswind,
>>followed by a
>>downwind for runway 23. The traffic pattern appeared
>>normal to the
>>observers.
>>
>>While on base leg, the glider was observed to enter
>>a left turn prior
>>to having reached a position from which the turn to
>>final would
>>normally have been made. The left turn increased in
>>bank angle, the
>>nose dropped and the glider disappeared from view.
>>Some of the
>>witnesses said the glider appeared slow and was in
>>a nose up attitude.
>>The bank angle was estimated to be in excess of 60
>>degrees, and the
>>nose down attitude at least 45 degrees.
>>...
>>
>>6. This was on the rest day of 15 meter nationals
>>
>>NTSB Identification: FTW01LA179.
>>The docket is stored in the Docket Management System
>>(DMS). Please
>>contact Public Inquiries
>>14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
>>Accident occurred Sunday, August 12, 2001 in Uvalde,
>>TX
>>Probable Cause Approval Date: 2/20/2002
>>Aircraft: PDPS PZL-Bielsko SZD-55-1, registration:
>>N55VW
>>Injuries: 1 Fatal.
>>The commercial pilot was completing the third leg of
>>a soaring 300 km
>>triangle. The glider owner, who was in contact with
>>the pilot via
>>radio, reported that the pilot stated he had the field
>>in sight
>>approximately 8 miles from the airport. The glider
>>entered the traffic
>>pattern for runway 15 and was turning base when the
>>owner observed it
>>enter a spin. A witness reported that the glider banked,
>>'appeared to
>>have stalled, and spiraled counter-clockwise' in a
>>nose low attitude
>>into the ground. Another witness, located approximately
>>a block from
>>the accident site, stated that she 'looked up and saw
>>the glider
>>spinning counter clockwise very fast and falling nose
>>first.' The
>>glider impacted the ground and came to rest approximately
>>1/4 mile from
>>the approach end of runway. The pilot had accumulated
>>approximately 270
>>total glider flight hours and 5 flight hours in the
>>same make and model
>>as the accident aircraft. No pre-impact anomalies were
>>noted with the
>>glider during the examination.
>>
>>(There was a low pass here too, though not mentioned
>>in the official
>>report. I guess pilots are smart enough not to talk
>>too much to the FAA
>>and NTSB!)
>>
>>
>>John Cochrane
>>BB
>>
>
>
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd
>

[Stewart Kissel]

>
>I'm in complete agreement. I don't fly contests, likely
>never will, but I
>sure *used* to enjoy the contest finishes.


I suppose this is a case of different strokes for different
folks...I watch these and think to myself ....'What's
the point?'...and have a particularly hard time explaining
the logic of this manuever to non-glider aviators.

But then I don't stare at teenagers burning rubber
either :)


What a shame they destroyed the
>best part of contests for the spectators.

Like there are a.) any in the first place, and b.)
the few there are will now stop attending. :)
>
>bumper
>ZZ
>Minden
>
>
>

[Kilo Charlie]

Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are examples of
poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not related to
judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even contest
flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if there
were a midair at the gate.

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Marc Ramsey]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are examples of
> poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
> accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not related to
> judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even contest
> flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

So, stalling and spinning moments after what are clearly, in several
cases (including the most recent), botched gate finishes (i.e.,
insufficient energy) has absolutely nothing to do with the use of a
gate, while stalling and spinning at 600 feet while trying to sneak over
the edge of a finish cylinder, proves that cylinder finishes are
dangerous?

> An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if there
> were a midair at the gate.

You've got it! I can choose not to finish at 50 feet, but I have no
control over the potential for a midair. I have had trouble several
times with having to land between gliders crossing my base leg low and
fast on their way to the finish gate. There was also the time someone
cut me off at the gate, by hooking it 100 feet in front of me. Maybe I
missed the finish calls, or maybe they didn't make them, it really
doesn't matter. Poor judgment and bad luck may well equal two dead
contest pilots one of these days.

The bottom line is this, whoever is fastest with a 50 foot gate, is also
going to be fastest with a 500 foot cylinder. So, why do some insist
upon trying to force use of a "fun" finish procedure that quite a few of
us find dangerous? As far as I'm concerned, if even one participant
objects, a gate shouldn't be used (and, yes, I have objected, and have
been overruled). If everyone agrees, have a good time...

> So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Yeah, what a silly thing to do...

Marc

[Andy Blackburn]

I was afraid we might go a whole year without a finish
height debate - Wheee!

9B

At 05:30 11 March 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Kilo Charlie wrote:
>> Every single one of these is a stall spin accident.
>> They are examples of
>> poor judgement and are not different than any other
>>stall spin
>> accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that
>>this is not related to
>> judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some
>>are not even contest
>> flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates
>>at all.
>
>So, stalling and spinning moments after what are clearly,
>in several
>cases (including the most recent), botched gate finishes
>(i.e.,
>insufficient energy) has absolutely nothing to do with
>the use of a
>gate, while stalling and spinning at 600 feet while
>trying to sneak over
>the edge of a finish cylinder, proves that cylinder
>finishes are
>dangerous?
>
>> An example of an accident that is related to the finish
>>gate is if there
>> were a midair at the gate.
>
>You've got it! I can choose not to finish at 50 feet,
>but I have no
>control over the potential for a midair. I have had
>trouble several
>times with having to land between gliders crossing
>my base leg low and
>fast on their way to the finish gate. There was also
>the time someone
>cut me off at the gate, by hooking it 100 feet in front
>of me. Maybe I
>missed the finish calls, or maybe they didn't make
>them, it really
>doesn't matter. Poor judgment and bad luck may well
>equal two dead
>contest pilots one of these days.
>
>The bottom line is this, whoever is fastest with a
>50 foot gate, is also
>going to be fastest with a 500 foot cylinder. So,
>why do some insist
>upon trying to force use of a 'fun' finish procedure
>that quite a few of
>us find dangerous? As far as I'm concerned, if even
>one participant
>objects, a gate shouldn't be used (and, yes, I have
>objected, and have
>been overruled). If everyone agrees, have a good time...
>
>> So it brings back to attempting to legislate good
>>judgement.
>
>Yeah, what a silly thing to do...
>
>Marc
>

[[email protected]]

I agree with Casey... but I'd rephrase it in a less politically correct
way:

There are some pilots who train for a racing environment and many who
don't. No surprise then that the latter are incompetent in some of the
basic skills of racing. Like taking off with water, centering thermals,
gaggle etiquette, and finishing. As finishes are highly regulated (a
requirement for safety), one way to short cut ignorance is to change
them into something we can all do. LCD. The inertia of ignorance and
lassitude will always overcome skill and enthusiasm (sadly, by shear
force of numbers).

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished by
skillful pilots exercising good judgement. There IS unbounded risk in
any maneuver attempted by pilots who take the environment too lightly.
If you don't want to improve your skills, why compete? That's the point
of it, after all. To compare yourself to others... to enter into a
rivalry. When you meet someone better, you tip your hat to his or her
skills and accomplishments, then redouble your efforts to improve your
own. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, stop competing and
start attending soaring camps. They're fun too.

And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed to
do that. If I thought that the finish line was inherently dangerous,
I'd be up there with you. God knows I do my level best to keep a good
distance between me and the prestart gaggle -- whenever I can. Now if
you want to improve safety, put some effort into that!

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are
examples of
> poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
> accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not
related to
> judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even
contest
> flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.
>
> An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if
there
> were a midair at the gate.
>
> So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix

[Fred Mueller]

I'm kinda new at this, but here's my two cents worth. There is an
advantage to a finish line that we don't see with a cylinder finish.
Everyone is funneled through a fairly precise point so we know where to
look for traffic and we have a fairly good idea how their pattern to
land will look. In a cylinder finish, all bets are off and every type
of pattern entry known to man from every possible direction is
accomplished along with often unpredictable results, this is especially
bad during a MAT or when different classes are finishing from different
directions. There are ways to solve this but it makes things more
complicated than a simple finish line.

FM


remove nospam to reply

wrote:
> I agree with Casey... but I'd rephrase it in a less politically correct
> way:
>
> There are some pilots who train for a racing environment and many who
> don't. No surprise then that the latter are incompetent in some of the
> basic skills of racing. Like taking off with water, centering thermals,
> gaggle etiquette, and finishing. As finishes are highly regulated (a
> requirement for safety), one way to short cut ignorance is to change
> them into something we can all do. LCD. The inertia of ignorance and
> lassitude will always overcome skill and enthusiasm (sadly, by shear
> force of numbers).
>
> There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished by
> skillful pilots exercising good judgement. There IS unbounded risk in
> any maneuver attempted by pilots who take the environment too lightly.
> If you don't want to improve your skills, why compete? That's the point
> of it, after all. To compare yourself to others... to enter into a
> rivalry. When you meet someone better, you tip your hat to his or her
> skills and accomplishments, then redouble your efforts to improve your
> own. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, stop competing and
> start attending soaring camps. They're fun too.
>
> And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
> race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed to
> do that. If I thought that the finish line was inherently dangerous,
> I'd be up there with you. God knows I do my level best to keep a good
> distance between me and the prestart gaggle -- whenever I can. Now if
> you want to improve safety, put some effort into that!
>
> Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
>>Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are
>
> examples of
>
>>poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
>>accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not
>
> related to
>
>>judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even
>
> contest
>
>>flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.
>>
>>An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if
>
> there
>
>>were a midair at the gate.
>>
>>So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.
>>
>>Casey Lenox
>>KC
>>Phoenix
>
>

[Bert Willing]

The 5km finish cylinder procedure with 200m min agl which I am used to has
no traffic problems at all.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Fred Mueller" > a écrit dans le message de
news: ...
> I'm kinda new at this, but here's my two cents worth. There is an
> advantage to a finish line that we don't see with a cylinder finish.
> Everyone is funneled through a fairly precise point so we know where to
> look for traffic and we have a fairly good idea how their pattern to land
> will look. In a cylinder finish, all bets are off and every type of
> pattern entry known to man from every possible direction is accomplished
> along with often unpredictable results, this is especially bad during a
> MAT or when different classes are finishing from different directions.
> There are ways to solve this but it makes things more complicated than a
> simple finish line.
>
> FM
>
>
> remove nospam to reply
>
> wrote:
>> I agree with Casey... but I'd rephrase it in a less politically correct
>> way:
>>
>> There are some pilots who train for a racing environment and many who
>> don't. No surprise then that the latter are incompetent in some of the
>> basic skills of racing. Like taking off with water, centering thermals,
>> gaggle etiquette, and finishing. As finishes are highly regulated (a
>> requirement for safety), one way to short cut ignorance is to change
>> them into something we can all do. LCD. The inertia of ignorance and
>> lassitude will always overcome skill and enthusiasm (sadly, by shear
>> force of numbers).
>>
>> There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished by
>> skillful pilots exercising good judgement. There IS unbounded risk in
>> any maneuver attempted by pilots who take the environment too lightly.
>> If you don't want to improve your skills, why compete? That's the point
>> of it, after all. To compare yourself to others... to enter into a
>> rivalry. When you meet someone better, you tip your hat to his or her
>> skills and accomplishments, then redouble your efforts to improve your
>> own. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, stop competing and
>> start attending soaring camps. They're fun too.
>>
>> And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
>> race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed to
>> do that. If I thought that the finish line was inherently dangerous,
>> I'd be up there with you. God knows I do my level best to keep a good
>> distance between me and the prestart gaggle -- whenever I can. Now if
>> you want to improve safety, put some effort into that!
>>
>> Kilo Charlie wrote:
>>
>>>Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are
>>
>> examples of
>>
>>>poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
>>>accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not
>>
>> related to
>>
>>>judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even
>>
>> contest
>>
>>>flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.
>>>
>>>An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if
>>
>> there
>>
>>>were a midair at the gate.
>>>
>>>So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.
>>>
>>>Casey Lenox
>>>KC
>>>Phoenix
>>

[toad]

I am a fairly new contest pilot, flying in sport's class in the
northeast.
If I had a competitive glider I might consider standard/15m class.

So take my comments as someone who has never had to do a gate finish
for real, but has considered them, practiced them and does consider
them inherently dangerous.

> There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished
by
> skillful pilots exercising good judgement.

I consider them to be inherently dangerous because the solution for
the fastest time pushes the pilot towards a very dangerous flying
situation.

Flying at best speed to fly for the last thermal all the way to 50agl
at the finish line. For my Grob102, if I was in a 4 knot thermal
that's 79 knots.
Also it's a 25/1 glide ration so at 1 nm away I am at 290 feet, 2nm at
540 feet. This seems pretty dangerous to me. If I hit sink, then I am
landing wherever the sink hit me, without any chance for picking a
field, flying a pattern, etc. Even if don't hit sink, I am still only
set up to land straight ahead past the finish line.

So most pilots add some safety margin (in the form of extra potential
energy), they take the thermal higher than they should (from a speed
perspective). As they get closer to the finish line, they convert the
potential energy to speed. Then re-convert the speed to height for a
'normal' pattern.

The problem is that you score higher (faster) for a lower safety
margin.

Why not just set the minimum required safety margin for all pilots ?
The required finish altitude is just that, a minimum safety margin for
all contest pilots. The rules are saying "if you reduce the safety
margin less than this, you will not get a better score than this."

> And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
> race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed
to
> do that.

But the rules should not provide a scoring benefit to the pilots who
decide to reduce the safety margin. I don't want to be thinking "hey,
if I really push this final glide I might make up that 20point
advantage my competitor got yesterday."

Todd Smith
3S

[BB]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are
examples of
> poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
> accident....e.g. from base to final....

That's right, but you're missing the point. Of course all these
accidents represent failures of judgement, decision-making, "improper
manipulation of the controls" or whatever you want to call it.

The fact is, though, that the standard finish gate procedure seems to
require a lot of that judgement, especially at the end of a long hot
flight and a long marginal final glide. This is proved by the fact that
a disquieting number of pilots are finding this task occasionally
beyond them and crashing.

So what do we do? We can say "well, they were bozos who didn't show
good judgment" and forget about it, which I take to be your proposal.
Ok, but then we resign ourselves to the fact that we will be picking
gliders out of the trees about once every two years, and mourning the
loss of one or two pilots per decade. That doesn't seem to bother you.
It bothers me, and it would bother me even if I were foolish enough to
think I was immune to screwing up once in a thousand or so finishes.

The fact is that a cylinder finish, followed by normal pattern entry,
is a maneuver that requires far less "judgement" by pilots. It's not
screw-up proof -- it is possible to fail in judgment here too, for
example by trying to thermal at low altitude with waterballast in an
effort to save a 5 minute rolling finish penalty, and spining out of
the thermal. But I think most of us find that a much less likely
failure of judgment.

Yes, it's less "fun" and has less "spectator appeal." For both, let me
suggest instead a tow after the contest flight and go do some
aerobatics. Put on a really good show. It will be even more fun and it
will really please the spectators.

And on spectator appeal, consider the effect that seeing even one crash
has on spectators and spouses. Just one crash converts the spectator
from "wow that looks like fun, I think I'll try it" to "man, that must
be dangerous".

John Cochrane
BB

[Mark James Boyd]

Greg Arnold > wrote:
>>
>> I did a high-speed low pass pullup 180 once. Just once.
>> I was low energy on the last 30 degrees of turn back and didn't
>> like it. Fortunately there was nobody around to see my cross-runway
>> landing. I don't think I'll do it again.
>
>
>Sounds like your "high-speed" wasn't that fast. If you didn't have
>enough altitude to make a normal landing, something was wrong with your
>technique.

LOL. Yep, I thought I said that already ;)

But there are "other" factors. Bumpy air means you can either overstress
by flying above Va, or dive only to Va and be lower energy. At Va,
a pullup in a ballasted 40:1 glider is different than that same pullup
in a PW-2. Come on out, Greg, and try your perfect "technique" in a
draggy PW-2 and I'll videotape it. :)

This is similar to my Baby Ace. Even at Vne dive with proper technique,
it is so draggy and underpowered that it is very hard to finish a loop
without stalling inverted. Quite different than a Lancair...

Then again, I'm a "tilter" hehehe...

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

BB > wrote:
>Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
>The fact is that a cylinder finish, followed by normal pattern entry,
>is a maneuver that requires far less "judgement" by pilots.

When you talk about a cylinder finish, are you talking about
a cylinder around the airport, and then having pilots come into the
pattern at random directions, or a cylinder or remote point
away from the airport, that brings gliders into the pattern
in an "onramp" style?

>John Cochrane

I'm trying to think about this from the Sports Class perspective too.
If I understand it, in Sports Class one chooses their own TPs,
so the pilots can come in from any direction, and a cylinder around the
airport wouldn't seem to solve much in terms of head-on
surprises.

So a remote point or remote cylinder seems like a better answer.
Has this been done in US contests? I am ignorant of what the term
"cylinder finish" means. Is it a remote cylinder or one around the
airport?

I liked the non-US post about remote finish points and how they are
used, just wondered if this had been tried on the US also...

--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Jamie,

That is exactly what I was thinking. A control point.
Yes, sort of like what we locally call an IP (initial point)
when entering on the 45 for our normal pattern to land.

We are fortunate to have a huge metal tank maybe 50 meters
diameter that could be used as this remote "control point" and
is in line with the 45 entry (sort of). It is probably 3-4 km
away. At 500ft AGL in a 2-33 with a headwind this would be a little
close, but in the L-13 or anything sexier it looks ok.

Thanks for your post! Control point. I like that.
Is it scored as an OZ or a cylinder? Scoring as an OZ
would take a little bit of thought, and as a cylinder, I'd
expect it'd need to be pretty narrow to not cover the airport.

In article >,
John Doe > wrote:
>Mark,
>
>I think what you are getting at is what we in the UK
>call a control point, a final turnpoint that must be
>rounded in the normal way, but is only maybe 5-10 km
>from the airfield, each glider is a few hundred feet
>(or more depending on the pilots saftey margins) up
>at this point and after turning the control point,
>competitors turn to the airfield and dive to a known
>linear finish gate. There is generally no minimun
>finish height so often the gate is crossed under 50
>ft but as all competitors are coming in from a fixed
>direction towards a small and clear area of land it
>eliminates the vast majority of head to head at low
>altitude issues and I've never seen congestion at a
>control point myself (altough as my own competition
>experience is rather limited I won't say it never happens).
>
> As for non comp gliders, everywhere I've been competing
>the daily briefing for non-comp pilots always stressed
>the comps procedures as well as use of the radio to
>ensure separation in launch, landing and finishing.
> As long as the finish gate is suitably chosen to be
>away from the main landing area and obstacles with
>space to land after as well as an easy entry into circuit
>for those with the speed to do so it can be both a
>safe and an exciting way to finish without the artificial
>complications of raised finish lines.
>
>John,
>
> Whilst some of those accidents are attributable
>to finish gates, I'd certainly question your thinking
>re: the last three.
> Taking the Discus crash for example, in a Discus
>(in which I have a reasonable if not spectacular amount
>of time), 500' is adequate, if not totally comfortable,
>for a decent enough circuit, that crash, as well as
>the others, from the reports seem to be the whole 'slightly
>low in the circuit leads to a poor turn leading to
>a spin in' issue.
> Where the blame in that lies is the topic for another
>thread but that, like the other last three, does not
>seem to be attributable directly to finish gate issues
>as surely a pilot just making it over a 500' 1 mile
>finish gate would be in exactly the same situation
>as someone who has just got a few hundred feet of height
>from a competition pullup?
>
>The others seem to be 'insufficient speed, insufficient
>time to recover from the spin', afaiks the same situation
>as trying to scrabble over a start gate at 450' and
>screwing up.
>
>It's been said before but unfortunately you can't legislate
>good judgement.
>
>Cheers
>
>Jamie Denton
>
--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> I'm trying to think about this from the Sports Class perspective too.
> If I understand it, in Sports Class one chooses their own TPs,
> so the pilots can come in from any direction, and a cylinder around the
> airport wouldn't seem to solve much in terms of head-on
> surprises.

The finish cylinder is basically a circle with (minimally) a 2 mile
*diameter*. A typical one will have a floor of 500 feet and no top.
Once the edge of the cylinder is crossed, one pulls up from the final
glide speed, which may well in excess of 100 knots, to a more reasonable
55 or 60 knots for pattern and landing. Following the pull up you are
usually at a minimum of 600 to 700 feet, and there is plenty of time to
sort out traffic, and sequence for landing. People finishing from the
same direction are no more of a problem than they are with a finish
gate. People finishing from the opposite direction are also not a big
deal, as both you and the head-on glider have normally slowed to 60
knots or less by the time you are within a mile of each other. Most
people by that point have started a series of gradual clearing turns, so
they can assess the traffic situation.

By contrast, with a finish gate, you have gliders converging on the same
point in space (thanks to GPS) at final glide speed of 100+ knots (if
you're under 100 feet, you better be going at least that fast), pulling
up to 200 feet or so (unless they have too little energy), then having
to sort themselves within a few moments and land. Now throw an MAT
(modified assigned task) into the mix, and things get interesting, as
you get some gliders running straight into the gate, and others
approaching the gate from one side or the other (and every once in a
while some bozo goes through the gate in the wrong direction), then
having to make a last minute high speed turn to go through the gate in
the proper direction. Now yes, things are easier with a required final
turnpoint (control point), several miles away from the finish gate, to
get everyone finishing in the same direction, but not all (or even most,
in my experience) contest directors bother to use them.

Marc

[Eric Greenwell]

Fred Mueller wrote:

> I'm kinda new at this,

New enough that you haven't used a finish line with the ground at the
bottom? If you haven't, it might be harder to understand how it works
out in practice.

but here's my two cents worth. There is an
> advantage to a finish line that we don't see with a cylinder finish.
> Everyone is funneled through a fairly precise point so we know where to
> look for traffic and we have a fairly good idea how their pattern to
> land will look. In a cylinder finish, all bets are off and every type
> of pattern entry known to man from every possible direction is
> accomplished along with often unpredictable results,

I don't see this happening in the contests I've flown with large, high
cylinder finishes. All the pilots that had a good finish have been able
to use the standard pattern to land. Pilots that did not have a good
finish often used non-standard patterns, such as rolling finishes or no
downwind leg, and so on.

> this is especially
> bad during a MAT or when different classes are finishing from different
> directions.

My experience is the low finish line is worse in these conditions,
because the pilots are NOT being "funneled" (brought along a small angle
sector) to a precise point: they arriving_ spread out more or less along
the line from many different directins, including 180 degrees apart,
with some hooking the gate and doing a very non-standard pattern entry.
I've even seen 180s after a finish, with the glider landing back into
the oncoming finishers.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kilo Charlie]

Ok, but then we resign ourselves to the fact that we will be picking
> gliders out of the trees about once every two years, and mourning the
> loss of one or two pilots per decade. That doesn't seem to bother you.

OK I see you're resorting to personal insults now John. That's what happens
sometimes when a persons arguement fails on it's own merits.

Truth be known I'm a conservative racing pilot that takes few chances.
You've flown with me in Uvalde and as I remember you took more chances than
I did. You are absolutely wrong re the finish gate and have no data to
prove me otherwise. I have not ever felt the finish gate to be a threat.
It sometimes begins to sound like you all want protection from yourselves
i.e. you MUST fly dangerously if not prevented from doing so by the rules.

I'm all for educating and training pilots to be aware of the threats they
might encounter at ALL levels not just the finish gate. I am NOT for a
subgroup of people wishing to basically install rubber baby buggy bumpers
into all of the racing rules. It's a dead horse beating.

Casey

[Bill Daniels]

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:nyqYd.42760$FM3.22504@fed1read02...
> Ok, but then we resign ourselves to the fact that we will be picking
> > gliders out of the trees about once every two years, and mourning the
> > loss of one or two pilots per decade. That doesn't seem to bother you.
>
> OK I see you're resorting to personal insults now John. That's what
happens
> sometimes when a persons arguement fails on it's own merits.
>
> Truth be known I'm a conservative racing pilot that takes few chances.
> You've flown with me in Uvalde and as I remember you took more chances
than
> I did. You are absolutely wrong re the finish gate and have no data to
> prove me otherwise. I have not ever felt the finish gate to be a threat.
> It sometimes begins to sound like you all want protection from yourselves
> i.e. you MUST fly dangerously if not prevented from doing so by the rules.
>
> I'm all for educating and training pilots to be aware of the threats they
> might encounter at ALL levels not just the finish gate. I am NOT for a
> subgroup of people wishing to basically install rubber baby buggy bumpers
> into all of the racing rules. It's a dead horse beating.
>
> Casey
>
>

I agree with Casey. Contests are getting bor-ring.

I feel like a rant.

Go read Sterling Starr's reminiscing about the 1966 US Nationals at Reno,
Nevada in the latest Soaring Magazine. I was there too. Those guys knew
what soaring competition was all about.

These days, you guys don't want to risk a land out or fly long tasks and you
don't want low finishes.

You sound like a bunch of wusses.

Why not stop calling what you do a contest and call it what it has become -
just a rally. If the soaring rules committee ran the Indy 500, the drivers
would be wearing pink bunny suits and driving pedal cars.

Get real. If you want to race, then RACE. Sure, there'll be some risks.
If the kitchen's too hot for you, get out.

This ELT rule is the last straw. Maybe if I could borrow a PLB to put in my
parachute it would be OK but build it into the glider? No way. ELT's have
been used in GenAv for decades and 99% of all activation's have been hard
landings with no damage.

How much hassle is it going to be when a pothole activates the damn thing in
the trailer? I can see it now, a glider trailer humming down the interstate
with a swarm of CAP planes overhead trying to triangulate on the thing.

Sheesh! What's become of us?

End rant.

Bill Daniels

[Tim Ward]

> wrote in message
ups.com...

> There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished by
> skillful pilots exercising good judgement. There IS unbounded risk in
> any maneuver attempted by pilots who take the environment too lightly.

So, let's take a few minutes off the pilot's elapsed time for a low pass.
A few more off for a low pass with an aileron roll on the upline.
Still more for an inverted low pass.
I'm sure we could come up with a graded series of maneuvers, that could all
be accomplished by skillful pilots exercising good judgement. Judges could
add time for sloppy execution.
Just think of the additional entertainment for spectators!

> If you don't want to improve your skills, why compete? That's the point
<snippage hath occurred>

Or it might be a case of: what skills, exactly, do we want to compare when
we race?

Tim Ward

[John Sinclair]

Bill Daniels wrote:

>You sound like a bunch of wusses.

>If the kitchen's too hot for you, get out.

This particular, 'Wuss' has flown 200 combat missions
in Vietnam (RF-4C) and have a hand full of Air medals
+ a DFC. I didn't take unnecessary chances over there
and I haven't done it in 4300 hours spent racing sailplanes.
The advent of GPS has completely negated the need for
the 'Neanderthal' finish line. Why do we keep it in
the rules?

Allow me to touch on another little point, the FAR's
don't allow us to go below 500 feet at places like
an airport, unless we are in the act of landing. Driving
in at 50 feet, we aren't in the act of landing, are
we? Who want's to explain that in court?
JJ Sinclair

[Eric Greenwell]

Bill Daniels wrote:

> This ELT rule is the last straw. Maybe if I could borrow a PLB to put in my
> parachute it would be OK but build it into the glider? No way. ELT's have
> been used in GenAv for decades and 99% of all activation's have been hard
> landings with no damage.

It doesn't appear that it's near this bad for gliders. I don't know why
it's different, but maybe it's the ELT being mounted close to the gear,
and the shorter gear of the gliders keeps the forward forces from a hard
landing low enough to avoid setting it off.

>
> How much hassle is it going to be when a pothole activates the damn thing in
> the trailer? I can see it now, a glider trailer humming down the interstate
> with a swarm of CAP planes overhead trying to triangulate on the thing.

Not a problem in metal trailers, of course. Personally, I've trailered
an ELT equipped glider as far as Alaska and San Diego (over the years,
about 40,000 miles) and it's never activated. I think the trailers ride
smoothly enough, so even behind a motorhome with a harsh suspension it's
not a problem.

Even so, I think requiring an ELT should be up to the contest organizers.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kilo Charlie]

> Allow me to touch on another little point, the FAR's
> don't allow us to go below 500 feet at places like
> an airport, unless we are in the act of landing. Driving
> in at 50 feet, we aren't in the act of landing, are
> we? Who want's to explain that in court?
> JJ Sinclair

Oh for God's sake JJ.....you know full well that a low pass is LEGAL re the
FAR's when over an airport. If you don't believe that then explain why
there have been numerous instances of the FAA being present during finishes
at airports around the US for years without a single citation.

When we do passes for fun (yes they can be fun for those of you that are
thinking after reading these threads that only psychotic wackos do them) at
our local airport we do them down the runway with radio calls typically at
10, 4 and 1-2 miles alerting traffic and asking for advisories. So help me
understand how that is ANY different than a landing. And just to ensure you
that I really am a rational being....I broke off a pass last weekend when an
ultralight and other glider traffic presented a possible conflict.

Casey

[Fred Mueller]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> Fred Mueller wrote:
>
>> I'm kinda new at this,
>
>
> New enough that you haven't used a finish line with the ground at the
> bottom? If you haven't, it might be harder to understand how it works
> out in practice.
>

Not that new.

Fred

[Fred Mueller]

Most people do not understand the implications of having flown an RF-4
in Vitenam.

What I know about the RF-4 in Vietnam I learned while going through USAF
pilot training in the early 80's. There was a video in our viewing room
called "Alone, Unarmed, and Unafraid." It was about the RF-4.

You see, the RF-4 has no weapons, only cameras. After the US would bomb
something, as you might imagine, all the people that had lived through
the bombing were really ****ed. They were real eager to damage something
US and they knew that they would have a chance by just waiting at the
bombed out sites for the lonely RF-4 that was going to be coming by soon
to take pictures. The damage isn't real until there's a picture, gotta
have a picture. The RF-4's defense was low altitude and speed---lots of
speed. And they still got there ass shot up all the time.

200 missions in an RF-4 over Vietnam. I can't possibly imagine what
might qualify as an unnecessary risk in those circumstances. I tip my hat.

Fred




John Sinclair wrote:
> Bill Daniels wrote:
>
>
>>You sound like a bunch of wusses.
>
>
>>If the kitchen's too hot for you, get out.
>
>
> This particular, 'Wuss' has flown 200 combat missions
> in Vietnam (RF-4C) and have a hand full of Air medals
> + a DFC. I didn't take unnecessary chances over there
> and I haven't done it in 4300 hours spent racing sailplanes.
> The advent of GPS has completely negated the need for
> the 'Neanderthal' finish line. Why do we keep it in
> the rules?
>
> Allow me to touch on another little point, the FAR's
> don't allow us to go below 500 feet at places like
> an airport, unless we are in the act of landing. Driving
> in at 50 feet, we aren't in the act of landing, are
> we? Who want's to explain that in court?
> JJ Sinclair
>
>
>

[John Sinclair]

At 05:00 12 March 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:

>Oh for God's sake JJ.....you know full well that a
>low pass is LEGAL re the
>FAR's when over an airport. If you don't believe that
>then explain why
>there have been numerous instances of the FAA being
>present during finishes
>at airports around the US for years without a single
>citation.

A low pass may be tolerated by the FAA when done down
the runway. Our finish gates are normally not situated
so that the sailplane makes a low pass right down the
runway. Anyway, the big potential problem isn't getting
a citation from the FAA, it's being named in a law
suit. Those of us that run soaring contests have an
obligation to do everything in our power to make the
event as safe as possible.
Bill took some of us to task for being 'Wooses' and
said we should run our contests like they did in the
'66 nationals at Reno-Stead. Quote from Sterling Starr's
excellent article, 'Ten pilots, because of landing
damage and other problems, were unable to compete.'
And this was only after 4 days. I'll take our present
rules, but we have an opligation to do this as safe
as we possibly can.
JJ

[John Doe]

Hi Mark
A control point in simply an additional turnpoint
(as opposed to a remote finish) placed next to the
airport so as to bring gliders round to finish from
a direction where an appropriate finish gate can be
provided. As per UK rules this is the usual 1/2 km
radius circle and 20k (I think) thistle. If you aren't
sure about the thistle part (I don't know if it has
an equivalent in US rules) there is a diagram on page
11 of:
http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/competitionrules2005.pdf


For an example of Control Point use look at this
task from last years junior nationals:

http://www.lasham.org.uk/comps/nationals/taskview.asp?comp=b&ddate
=Saturday%2021st%20August

Lasham has a very open finish line coming in from the
west but no suitable place to locate a finish line
from the north, so each day where the task came in
from the north an aditional turn point (in this case
TP4) was added to force competitors to approach from
the west.
A glider has not finished until it has crossed
an on airfield finish line or entered the finish circle
(page 12 of the above pdf).

You mentioned the self selection of turnpoints
in the US Sports class (I assume that is similar to
our Club Class). In this case might it not be an idea
to have the provision for a mandatory turn point at
the end of the task and say 'you may select the order
of your turnpoints but your final turnpoint must be
this one'. This would seem to eliminate the whole
problem of converging gliders at low level without
necessitating the use of such a large finish cylinder
(which I have to admit I am sceptical of the value
of). There are obvious issues regarding the use of
thistles and penalty sectorsif the direction you are
approaching the airport is not fixed (in UK competitions,
the order of turns is usually fixed), but I think these
could be alleviated by the use of a simple 1k cylinder.
The idea of the thistle I believe is to allow a pilot
to round a turnpoint further out if the conditions
at the turnpoint are unfavorable, but as the control
point is very near the finish a pilot would be trying
to get to that exact location so the thistle could
be discarded at this point, leaving a 1 or 2 km radius
cylinder as the only point.

Cheers

Jamie

p.s. I have to admit that on that day during the Juniors
I forgot about the conrol point and went straight for
the finish, recording a gps landout a few k from the
airfield, d'oh!



At 18:30 11 March 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>Jamie,
>
> That is exactly what I was thinking. A control point.
>Yes, sort of like what we locally call an IP (initial
>point)
>when entering on the 45 for our normal pattern to land.
>
> We are fortunate to have a huge metal tank maybe
>50 meters
>diameter that could be used as this remote 'control
>point' and
>is in line with the 45 entry (sort of). It is probably
>3-4 km
>away. At 500ft AGL in a 2-33 with a headwind this
>would be a little
>close, but in the L-13 or anything sexier it looks
>ok.
>
> Thanks for your post! Control point. I like that.
>Is it scored as an OZ or a cylinder? Scoring as an
>OZ
>would take a little bit of thought, and as a cylinder,
>I'd
>expect it'd need to be pretty narrow to not cover the
>airport.
>
>In article ,
>John Doe wrote:
>>Mark,
>>
>>I think what you are getting at is what we in the UK
>>call a control point, a final turnpoint that must be
>>rounded in the normal way, but is only maybe 5-10 km
>>from the airfield, each glider is a few hundred feet
>>(or more depending on the pilots saftey margins) up
>>at this point and after turning the control point,
>>competitors turn to the airfield and dive to a known
>>linear finish gate. There is generally no minimun
>>finish height so often the gate is crossed under 50
>>ft but as all competitors are coming in from a fixed
>>direction towards a small and clear area of land it
>>eliminates the vast majority of head to head at low
>>altitude issues and I've never seen congestion at a
>>control point myself (altough as my own competition
>>experience is rather limited I won't say it never happens).
>>
>> As for non comp gliders, everywhere I've been competing
>>the daily briefing for non-comp pilots always stressed
>>the comps procedures as well as use of the radio to
>>ensure separation in launch, landing and finishing.
>> As long as the finish gate is suitably chosen to be
>>away from the main landing area and obstacles with
>>space to land after as well as an easy entry into circuit
>>for those with the speed to do so it can be both a
>>safe and an exciting way to finish without the artificial
>>complications of raised finish lines.
>>
>>John,
>>
>> Whilst some of those accidents are attributable
>>to finish gates, I'd certainly question your thinking
>>re: the last three.
>> Taking the Discus crash for example, in a Discus
>>(in which I have a reasonable if not spectacular amount
>>of time), 500' is adequate, if not totally comfortable,
>>for a decent enough circuit, that crash, as well as
>>the others, from the reports seem to be the whole 'slightly
>>low in the circuit leads to a poor turn leading to
>>a spin in' issue.
>> Where the blame in that lies is the topic for another
>>thread but that, like the other last three, does not
>>seem to be attributable directly to finish gate issues
>>as surely a pilot just making it over a 500' 1 mile
>>finish gate would be in exactly the same situation
>>as someone who has just got a few hundred feet of height
>>from a competition pullup?
>>
>>The others seem to be 'insufficient speed, insufficient
>>time to recover from the spin', afaiks the same situation
>>as trying to scrabble over a start gate at 450' and
>>screwing up.
>>
>>It's been said before but unfortunately you can't legislate
>>good judgement.
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>Jamie Denton
>>
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark J. Boyd
>

[Andy Blackburn]

At 05:00 12 March 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
>> Allow me to touch on another little point, the FAR's
>> don't allow us to go below 500 feet at places like
>> an airport, unless we are in the act of landing. Driving
>> in at 50 feet, we aren't in the act of landing, are
>> we? Who want's to explain that in court?
>> JJ Sinclair
>
>Oh for God's sake JJ.....you know full well that a
>low pass is LEGAL re the
>FAR's when over an airport.

The FAR point was debunked in a similar thread more
than a year ago. You can fly as low as you want as
long as you aren't within a specified distance of a
'man-made structure'. Anyone remember the distance?
As I recall the debate then turned to whether runways,
corn fields, other gliders constituted 'structures'
as they are often the only man-made objects near a
finish gate. It was decided that this couldn't be
the intended meaning because the way the reg was worded
it would make landing, formation flying and a bunch
of known legal maneuvers illegal too. There is no reference
to 'down the runway' found in the FARs either.

The thread ended with a discussion of the safety merits
of JJ painting his barn atop a 20' extension ladder
and whether it should be legal for him to do something
that injures 14,000 people each year. I thought that
put things in perspective. :-)

9B

[Mark James Boyd]

Thanks Marc. this is helpful.

In article >,
Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> I'm trying to think about this from the Sports Class perspective too.
>> If I understand it, in Sports Class one chooses their own TPs,
>> so the pilots can come in from any direction, and a cylinder around the
>> airport wouldn't seem to solve much in terms of head-on
>> surprises.
>
>The finish cylinder is basically a circle with (minimally) a 2 mile
>*diameter*. A typical one will have a floor of 500 feet and no top.
>Once the edge of the cylinder is crossed, one pulls up from the final
>glide speed, which may well in excess of 100 knots, to a more reasonable
>55 or 60 knots for pattern and landing. Following the pull up you are
>usually at a minimum of 600 to 700 feet, and there is plenty of time to
>sort out traffic, and sequence for landing. People finishing from the
>same direction are no more of a problem than they are with a finish
>gate. People finishing from the opposite direction are also not a big
>deal, as both you and the head-on glider have normally slowed to 60
>knots or less by the time you are within a mile of each other. Most
>people by that point have started a series of gradual clearing turns, so
>they can assess the traffic situation.
>
>By contrast, with a finish gate, you have gliders converging on the same
>point in space (thanks to GPS) at final glide speed of 100+ knots (if
>you're under 100 feet, you better be going at least that fast), pulling
>up to 200 feet or so (unless they have too little energy), then having
>to sort themselves within a few moments and land. Now throw an MAT
>(modified assigned task) into the mix, and things get interesting, as
>you get some gliders running straight into the gate, and others
>approaching the gate from one side or the other (and every once in a
>while some bozo goes through the gate in the wrong direction), then
>having to make a last minute high speed turn to go through the gate in
>the proper direction. Now yes, things are easier with a required final
>turnpoint (control point), several miles away from the finish gate, to
>get everyone finishing in the same direction, but not all (or even most,
>in my experience) contest directors bother to use them.
>
>Marc


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Mark James Boyd]

Jamie,

Great response, and very helpful. Especially knowing that it is a
1/2 km radius circle. In the case I mentioned, a 1/2 km circle
around our metal tank is still far enough away that it doesn't
infringe on our pattern (I think). I'll need to check it again though.

I really like this remote finish idea and will ask around a bit more.
As others have pointed out, it seems to be at Contest Director discretion
here in the US how this kind of stuff is handled.

Cheers!

Mark

In article >,
John Doe > wrote:
>Hi Mark
> A control point in simply an additional turnpoint
>(as opposed to a remote finish) placed next to the
>airport so as to bring gliders round to finish from
>a direction where an appropriate finish gate can be
>provided. As per UK rules this is the usual 1/2 km
>radius circle and 20k (I think) thistle. If you aren't
>sure about the thistle part (I don't know if it has
>an equivalent in US rules) there is a diagram on page
>11 of:
>http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/competitionrules2005.pdf
>
>
> For an example of Control Point use look at this
>task from last years junior nationals:
>
>http://www.lasham.org.uk/comps/nationals/taskview.asp?comp=b&ddate
>=Saturday%2021st%20August
>
>Lasham has a very open finish line coming in from the
>west but no suitable place to locate a finish line
>from the north, so each day where the task came in
>from the north an aditional turn point (in this case
>TP4) was added to force competitors to approach from
>the west.
> A glider has not finished until it has crossed
>an on airfield finish line or entered the finish circle
>(page 12 of the above pdf).
>
> You mentioned the self selection of turnpoints
>in the US Sports class (I assume that is similar to
>our Club Class). In this case might it not be an idea
>to have the provision for a mandatory turn point at
>the end of the task and say 'you may select the order
>of your turnpoints but your final turnpoint must be
>this one'. This would seem to eliminate the whole
>problem of converging gliders at low level without
>necessitating the use of such a large finish cylinder
>(which I have to admit I am sceptical of the value
>of). There are obvious issues regarding the use of
>thistles and penalty sectorsif the direction you are
>approaching the airport is not fixed (in UK competitions,
>the order of turns is usually fixed), but I think these
>could be alleviated by the use of a simple 1k cylinder.
> The idea of the thistle I believe is to allow a pilot
>to round a turnpoint further out if the conditions
>at the turnpoint are unfavorable, but as the control
>point is very near the finish a pilot would be trying
>to get to that exact location so the thistle could
>be discarded at this point, leaving a 1 or 2 km radius
>cylinder as the only point.
>
>Cheers
>
>Jamie
>
>p.s. I have to admit that on that day during the Juniors
>I forgot about the conrol point and went straight for
>the finish, recording a gps landout a few k from the
>airfield, d'oh!
>
>
>
>At 18:30 11 March 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>>Jamie,
>>
>> That is exactly what I was thinking. A control point.
>>Yes, sort of like what we locally call an IP (initial
>>point)
>>when entering on the 45 for our normal pattern to land.
>>
>> We are fortunate to have a huge metal tank maybe
>>50 meters
>>diameter that could be used as this remote 'control
>>point' and
>>is in line with the 45 entry (sort of). It is probably
>>3-4 km
>>away. At 500ft AGL in a 2-33 with a headwind this
>>would be a little
>>close, but in the L-13 or anything sexier it looks
>>ok.
>>
>> Thanks for your post! Control point. I like that.
>>Is it scored as an OZ or a cylinder? Scoring as an
>>OZ
>>would take a little bit of thought, and as a cylinder,
>>I'd
>>expect it'd need to be pretty narrow to not cover the
>>airport.
>>
>>In article ,
>>John Doe wrote:
>>>Mark,
>>>
>>>I think what you are getting at is what we in the UK
>>>call a control point, a final turnpoint that must be
>>>rounded in the normal way, but is only maybe 5-10 km
>>>from the airfield, each glider is a few hundred feet
>>>(or more depending on the pilots saftey margins) up
>>>at this point and after turning the control point,
>>>competitors turn to the airfield and dive to a known
>>>linear finish gate. There is generally no minimun
>>>finish height so often the gate is crossed under 50
>>>ft but as all competitors are coming in from a fixed
>>>direction towards a small and clear area of land it
>>>eliminates the vast majority of head to head at low
>>>altitude issues and I've never seen congestion at a
>>>control point myself (altough as my own competition
>>>experience is rather limited I won't say it never happens).
>>>
>>> As for non comp gliders, everywhere I've been competing
>>>the daily briefing for non-comp pilots always stressed
>>>the comps procedures as well as use of the radio to
>>>ensure separation in launch, landing and finishing.
>>> As long as the finish gate is suitably chosen to be
>>>away from the main landing area and obstacles with
>>>space to land after as well as an easy entry into circuit
>>>for those with the speed to do so it can be both a
>>>safe and an exciting way to finish without the artificial
>>>complications of raised finish lines.
>>>
>>>John,
>>>
>>> Whilst some of those accidents are attributable
>>>to finish gates, I'd certainly question your thinking
>>>re: the last three.
>>> Taking the Discus crash for example, in a Discus
>>>(in which I have a reasonable if not spectacular amount
>>>of time), 500' is adequate, if not totally comfortable,
>>>for a decent enough circuit, that crash, as well as
>>>the others, from the reports seem to be the whole 'slightly
>>>low in the circuit leads to a poor turn leading to
>>>a spin in' issue.
>>> Where the blame in that lies is the topic for another
>>>thread but that, like the other last three, does not
>>>seem to be attributable directly to finish gate issues
>>>as surely a pilot just making it over a 500' 1 mile
>>>finish gate would be in exactly the same situation
>>>as someone who has just got a few hundred feet of height
>>>from a competition pullup?
>>>
>>>The others seem to be 'insufficient speed, insufficient
>>>time to recover from the spin', afaiks the same situation
>>>as trying to scrabble over a start gate at 450' and
>>>screwing up.
>>>
>>>It's been said before but unfortunately you can't legislate
>>>good judgement.
>>>
>>>Cheers
>>>
>>>Jamie Denton
>>>
>>--
>>
>>------------+
>>Mark J. Boyd
>>
>
>
>


--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

[Papa3]

>
> My experience is th low finish line is worse in these conditions,
> because the pilots are NOT being "funneled" (brought along a small
angle
> sector) to a precise point: they arriving_ spread out more or less
along
> the line from many different directins, including 180 degrees apart,
> with some hooking the gate and doing a very non-standard pattern
entry.
> I've even seen 180s after a finish, with the glider landing back into

> the oncoming finishers.
>
> --
> Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA

I'm still on the fence on this one, but here's my "philosophy" on
rules. I think the primary purpose of the rules should be to protect
me from you (the imperial you - not any of the current posters :-), not
to protect me from myself. With that in mind, I feel like mid-air
collision avoidance should be the primary purpose of the finishing
routine, whether it be gate or cylinder. Given my very selfish goal,
which finishing routine does a better job? I have to say that in my
first 15 years of racing using a high speed gate, I really never had
any close calls. I found the situational awareness to be relatively
manageable given good radio ettiquette and a reaonable level of
professionalism among the other competitors. I have a lot less
experience with the cylinder, but my recollection from the few that
I've flown was a slightly increased nervousness about people
approaching from numerous directions, resulting in more slumped
shoulders (ie. trying to make myself feel like a small target).

So, which finishing routine does a better job of facilitating the
avoidance of a midair?

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

[Brian Glick]

John

I know you and respect your opinion, but you are wrong on this one. This was
a "relight" accident and the finish cylinder (or lack of one) would have
made no difference in this case. Sorry, but this arguement just does not
hold water this time!


"BB" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> I know it's a dead horse, but I can't help but point out that this is
> exactly the sort of accident that would be a lot less frequent with a
> 500 foot one mile circle finish. 70-80 kts right over the center of the
> airport at 51 feet is about the worst place you can be -- too much to
> land straight, too little to do a pattern. 70 knots, 501 feet, one mile
> out gives you a lot of time to think about what you're going to do
> next. 70 knots, 300 feet, one mile out means you're not going to make
> the flying finish at 500 feet, so you must roll. That decision is over,
> now use the whole mile to figure out how to land.
>
> Yes, pilots should think ahead to the pattern while also managing the
> stress of a tight glide. Yes, they should decide to do a rolling
> finish rather than focus entirely on the finishline and then wake up to
> the fact they have to land the darn thing. But everyone knows this
> advice, it's repeated over and over at the safety meetings, and we
> still get a crash like this once every few years -- usually with much
> worse results. A lower workload reduces the chances any of us will
> screw up.
>
>
> John Cochrane
> BB
>

[Steve Leonard]

Uh, Brian. The accident John was referring to was the Practice Day
accident, which was a too low, too slow for a pattern return to the
airport. One that should have become a rolling finish.

Pretty bad when we refer to not just "an accident" at a contest, but
"the first" accident at a contest, isn't it?

Steve Leonard

Brian Glick wrote:
> John
>
> I know you and respect your opinion, but you are wrong on this one.
This was
> a "relight" accident and the finish cylinder (or lack of one) would
have
> made no difference in this case. Sorry, but this arguement just does
not
> hold water this time!

[Brian]

Hi Andy

I can't believe I missed that thread. Anyway My FSDO will disagree with
your (or the threads) conclusion that a Low pass is Legal. They believe
it can be legal but you must approach in a manner from which a landing
may be possible.

A couple years ago they started letting all the instructors in the area
know that they were very likely to cite pilots for violation of the
FARs when doing low passes over the airport.

Primarily they were targeting many of the High performance homebuilts
we have in the area. Their aurgument was that previous cases had
determined that a fence post would constitute a Man Made
structure(Sorry they didn't tell us the specific case that determined
this) and thus operation with 500 feet of it would be a violation.
Notice that there is an exception for Take off and Landing. Basically
they wanted instructors to start warning these pilots that crossing the
Threshold at 249kts at 20 feet with the gear up was obviously not for
the purpose of Landing and the exception of this rule would not apply
and pilots could be cited for violation of FAR 91.119c

I don't know that they have actually enforced this, they may have just
been trying to reduce the number of Low passes occuring. Since they
were getting fairly regular complaints about the low passes.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL.



Here is FAR.

=A7 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
top
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an
aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency
landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or
settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of
1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of
2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the
surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those
cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any
person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

[Brian]

Reminds me of a comment I heard a while back from a FAA ATC Safety Rep.
it went something like this.

My Idea of playing it safe is putting another 1/2 mile spacing between
two airplanes. An F16 pilot's Idea of playing it safe is firing a
second Sidewinder in case the 1st misses.

Brian

[snoop]

Give us the FAR. Thanks!

[Kilo Charlie]

"Brian" > wrote in message
ups.com...
"Primarily they were targeting many of the High performance homebuilts
we have in the area. Their aurgument was that previous cases had
determined that a fence post would constitute a Man Made
structure(Sorry they didn't tell us the specific case that determined
this) and thus operation with 500 feet of it would be a violation."

Wow....not sure where you are but if this were enforced at any other airport
(including controlled) that I've been at in the past 34 years most of the
nations pilots would have had their tickets revoked. How about a show of
hands......is there anybody out there that has NEVER been in an aircraft
that was less than 500 feet from this definition of structure without the
intention of landing???? OK let's exclude the Volvo owners.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Andy Blackburn]

At 17:00 16 March 2005, Brian wrote:
>Their aurgument was that previous cases had
>determined that a fence post would constitute a Man
>Made
>structure(Sorry they didn't tell us the specific case
>that determined
>this)

struc·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (strkchr) n.

Something made up of a number of parts that are held
or put together in a particular way.

Maybe the fence post was attached to a building?

Thanks for the FAR

9B