Options

[[email protected]]

We successfully fly our sailplanes by keeping our options open, don't
we? We keep an extra 300 feet in the pattern, just in case we hit a
bunch of sink, don't we? On the ridge we keep our speed up and always
have an escape route, don't we?

Why then, do we continue to use a finish gate that reduces our options
to just one? When we finish at 50 feet we must immediately exchange our
speed for altitude and hope there isn't somebody above us as we make a
beautiful climbing turn to down-wind. What if we suddenly see someone
else in the pattern? What if we see 3 other ships in the pattern? Been
there, done that! I abandoned any thought of putting it on the runway
and lined up on the taxiway, just to see one of the other ships make
the same decision and cut inside me. We rolled to a stop, not 15 feet
apart.

Over the years I have paid my competitive dues by volunteering to run
contests. I have been the Competition Director in 3 Nationals and a
Regionals in the last 30 years. I will not subject myself, the pilots
or the organization to the liability involved in using a finish gate
that I consider outmoded, unnecessary and unsafe. We have an option,
don't we?

JJ Sinclair

[Nick Gilbert]

I think the idea is that you have a good idea what is going on in the
pattern before you finish. In most (all?) contests, the last leg of a task
*should* guarantee that all competitors are coming from the same direction,
therefore you have had 10/20/30/40+ miles with the same aircraft heading for
the finish.

In Australia we have had several midairs over the years, some with tragic
consequences, but I dont know of any that have occured at the finish line.
They all occur on task (generally in a thermal) where at least one of the 1
pilots would have had a good view of the other sailplane. When we fly, we
are all placing our life in the hands of other pilots.

I Agree that low, high speed finishes are not necessary. But they are FUN!
They are fun for the pilot, and fun for those on the ground. In fact, when
you think about it, they are really the only fun thing to see for the people
on the ground. They are also the only part of the sport with any marketing
potential. Non-pilots are not interested in seeing your new C302, PDA or
Winglets. They want action. Have a look at the interest the UKSmokin video
has generated. Watch it with non-gliding friends that have never seen a
glider before. See the look on their faces.

Nick.


> wrote in message
oups.com...
> We successfully fly our sailplanes by keeping our options open, don't
> we? We keep an extra 300 feet in the pattern, just in case we hit a
> bunch of sink, don't we? On the ridge we keep our speed up and always
> have an escape route, don't we?
>
> Why then, do we continue to use a finish gate that reduces our options
> to just one? When we finish at 50 feet we must immediately exchange our
> speed for altitude and hope there isn't somebody above us as we make a
> beautiful climbing turn to down-wind. What if we suddenly see someone
> else in the pattern? What if we see 3 other ships in the pattern? Been
> there, done that! I abandoned any thought of putting it on the runway
> and lined up on the taxiway, just to see one of the other ships make
> the same decision and cut inside me. We rolled to a stop, not 15 feet
> apart.
>
> Over the years I have paid my competitive dues by volunteering to run
> contests. I have been the Competition Director in 3 Nationals and a
> Regionals in the last 30 years. I will not subject myself, the pilots
> or the organization to the liability involved in using a finish gate
> that I consider outmoded, unnecessary and unsafe. We have an option,
> don't we?
>
> JJ Sinclair
>

[[email protected]]

I guess the older we get the less "fun" we want to have, remember.
There are old pilots and bold pilots but no old and bold pilots.


Nick Gilbert wrote:
> I think the idea is that you have a good idea what is going on in the

> pattern before you finish. In most (all?) contests, the last leg of a
task
> *should* guarantee that all competitors are coming from the same
direction,
> therefore you have had 10/20/30/40+ miles with the same aircraft
heading for
> the finish.
>
> In Australia we have had several midairs over the years, some with
tragic
> consequences, but I dont know of any that have occured at the finish
line.
> They all occur on task (generally in a thermal) where at least one of
the 1
> pilots would have had a good view of the other sailplane. When we
fly, we
> are all placing our life in the hands of other pilots.
>
> I Agree that low, high speed finishes are not necessary. But they are
FUN!
> They are fun for the pilot, and fun for those on the ground. In fact,
when
> you think about it, they are really the only fun thing to see for the
people
> on the ground. They are also the only part of the sport with any
marketing
> potential. Non-pilots are not interested in seeing your new C302, PDA
or
> Winglets. They want action. Have a look at the interest the UKSmokin
video
> has generated. Watch it with non-gliding friends that have never seen
a
> glider before. See the look on their faces.
>
> Nick.
>
>
> > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > We successfully fly our sailplanes by keeping our options open,
don't
> > we? We keep an extra 300 feet in the pattern, just in case we hit a
> > bunch of sink, don't we? On the ridge we keep our speed up and
always
> > have an escape route, don't we?
> >
> > Why then, do we continue to use a finish gate that reduces our
options
> > to just one? When we finish at 50 feet we must immediately exchange
our
> > speed for altitude and hope there isn't somebody above us as we
make a
> > beautiful climbing turn to down-wind. What if we suddenly see
someone
> > else in the pattern? What if we see 3 other ships in the pattern?
Been
> > there, done that! I abandoned any thought of putting it on the
runway
> > and lined up on the taxiway, just to see one of the other ships
make
> > the same decision and cut inside me. We rolled to a stop, not 15
feet
> > apart.
> >
> > Over the years I have paid my competitive dues by volunteering to
run
> > contests. I have been the Competition Director in 3 Nationals and a
> > Regionals in the last 30 years. I will not subject myself, the
pilots
> > or the organization to the liability involved in using a finish
gate
> > that I consider outmoded, unnecessary and unsafe. We have an
option,
> > don't we?
> >
> > JJ Sinclair
> >

[[email protected]]

JJ,

Of course we have options. It's called the Sports Class.

The fact that we have "so few" options in the finish gate is why it is
highly regulated. Finish direction. Radio contact. Procedures for
pattern entry and landing. And because we have so few options, it's
much easier to observe and predict the actions of other competent
pilots. As FM pointed out in another thread, it is much easier to
manage the environment and your own actions if you know where the
threats are coming from.

Yes, it is an anachronism. There is no need for a finish line. But I
would venture that it is less dynamic than a gaggle cylinder finish for
several reasons. First, when do you pull in a cylinder finish? When the
gps goes beep? How do I know mine will go beep in sequence with yours?
What if I delay my pull? What risk am I taking? What are the speed
differentials among the gliders in the gaggle? With a finish line, high
and low energy aircraft separate naturally. Will the pilot above and
behind me pushing to redline notice I'm in front flying at best L/D in
an attempt to avoid missing the bottom of the cyliner? And where is the
cylinder? Why, it's right there on my instrument panel! Next to the
altimeter, my other sore distraction.

When was the last time we wanted to ban gaggles for safety reasons? At
least in the finish I have energy. What are my options in the prestart
gaggle? I've always considered the finish gate a more manageable
environment that the top of a thermal with 30 other gliders, each pilot
with his own notion of how best to maintain altitude just below the top
of the cylinder while waiting for the "markers" to head out on course.

My theory is that ignorance shows more profoundly low and fast than
high and slow. Nice thing about ignorance, though. It's curable.

Thanks, JJ, for the opportunity to purge. It's been a rough week at
work.

Cheers and best wishes,

OC

[Nick Gilbert]

I know a few who are old & bold.

I think it should be treated as any other aerobatic manouver. People should
be taught how to do it safely. Aerobatics are unecessary & dangerous. Should
we ban them?

Nick.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
>I guess the older we get the less "fun" we want to have, remember.
> There are old pilots and bold pilots but no old and bold pilots.
>
>
> Nick Gilbert wrote:
>> I think the idea is that you have a good idea what is going on in the
>
>> pattern before you finish. In most (all?) contests, the last leg of a
> task
>> *should* guarantee that all competitors are coming from the same
> direction,
>> therefore you have had 10/20/30/40+ miles with the same aircraft
> heading for
>> the finish.
>>
>> In Australia we have had several midairs over the years, some with
> tragic
>> consequences, but I dont know of any that have occured at the finish
> line.
>> They all occur on task (generally in a thermal) where at least one of
> the 1
>> pilots would have had a good view of the other sailplane. When we
> fly, we
>> are all placing our life in the hands of other pilots.
>>
>> I Agree that low, high speed finishes are not necessary. But they are
> FUN!
>> They are fun for the pilot, and fun for those on the ground. In fact,
> when
>> you think about it, they are really the only fun thing to see for the
> people
>> on the ground. They are also the only part of the sport with any
> marketing
>> potential. Non-pilots are not interested in seeing your new C302, PDA
> or
>> Winglets. They want action. Have a look at the interest the UKSmokin
> video
>> has generated. Watch it with non-gliding friends that have never seen
> a
>> glider before. See the look on their faces.
>>
>> Nick.
>>
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> oups.com...
>> > We successfully fly our sailplanes by keeping our options open,
> don't
>> > we? We keep an extra 300 feet in the pattern, just in case we hit a
>> > bunch of sink, don't we? On the ridge we keep our speed up and
> always
>> > have an escape route, don't we?
>> >
>> > Why then, do we continue to use a finish gate that reduces our
> options
>> > to just one? When we finish at 50 feet we must immediately exchange
> our
>> > speed for altitude and hope there isn't somebody above us as we
> make a
>> > beautiful climbing turn to down-wind. What if we suddenly see
> someone
>> > else in the pattern? What if we see 3 other ships in the pattern?
> Been
>> > there, done that! I abandoned any thought of putting it on the
> runway
>> > and lined up on the taxiway, just to see one of the other ships
> make
>> > the same decision and cut inside me. We rolled to a stop, not 15
> feet
>> > apart.
>> >
>> > Over the years I have paid my competitive dues by volunteering to
> run
>> > contests. I have been the Competition Director in 3 Nationals and a
>> > Regionals in the last 30 years. I will not subject myself, the
> pilots
>> > or the organization to the liability involved in using a finish
> gate
>> > that I consider outmoded, unnecessary and unsafe. We have an
> option,
>> > don't we?
>> >
>> > JJ Sinclair
>> >
>

[[email protected]]

Oh, you just reminded me of a relite I had at Chester, SC one year.
Eleven of us were holding on in a dying thermal a mere 500 feet above
the runway, when, fizzle... no more thermal. All gliders landed
together, all full of water, and all within dozens of feet of each
other. A grand exhibition of a contractor's dozen executing some ad hoc
formation flying. It could have been a mess... but it wasn't. No radio
chatter. No whining. No accusations. Just an orderly arrival.

There's no reason the finish gate can't be equally well-mannered. The
key, then, now, and always, is competence. Not genius. Not the right
stuff. Just simple competence. Too slow, break off and land. Too high?
Don't be so conservative on the next final glide. Not sure which way to
go through the finish gate? Ask. Not sure you have enough energy to
clear the finish line and execute a 180? Key the mike, say you're
landing straight ahead, and do it. Never thought about this stuff
before? My-oh-my... what else haven't you thought about?

OC

This has been fun. God I love the odd dose of rancour. I'm looking
forward to the day I turn full curmudgeon and jump, with equal rancour,
to the other side of this issue!

JJ, looking forward to the 15m nats in Montague next year. Will you
have a glider?

[Stewart Kissel]

>
>I think it should be treated as any other aerobatic
>manouver.


Ahhh, hmmm....let's see if I understand this concept...

Unsynchronized group aerobatics done at low level and
high speed...in the landing pattern of an open airport....by
fatigued pilots.

Thanks but no thanks.

[Eric Greenwell]

wrote:
> First, when do you pull in a cylinder finish?

How about when it's clear? There's no hurry, unlike being 50 feet off
the ground.

> When the
> gps goes beep? How do I know mine will go beep in sequence with yours?
> What if I delay my pull?

I'm guessing you'd continue in the direction you are headed. Since you
are 500' in the air, this shouldn't cause any heartburn.

> What risk am I taking? What are the speed
> differentials among the gliders in the gaggle? With a finish line, high
> and low energy aircraft separate naturally.

You'll have to explain how this happens. I've seen high and low speed
gliders close together at finish lines, and if the high speed glider is
lower than the others, watch out! He's eager to climb up to pattern
height and isn't going to coast along for another 1000' or so.

> Will the pilot above and
> behind me pushing to redline notice I'm in front flying at best L/D in
> an attempt to avoid missing the bottom of the cyliner?

He's safe - he'll separate from you when he pulls up, and you aren't
going to pull up. That's a good situation. It seems unlikely he won't
see you ahead of him as he approaches. I've seen the same situation
finish gates, anyway.

And where is the
> cylinder? Why, it's right there on my instrument panel! Next to the
> altimeter, my other sore distraction.

I think if you can keep track of the other gliders zooming into a finish
line from various altitudes and angles, you'd be able to manage a finish
cylinder. At least, as you approach the cylinder, the gliders that will
enter the cylinder near you are all going the same direction you are,
which is often not true at a finish line.

> When was the last time we wanted to ban gaggles for safety reasons?

I think most of us have wanted to elimanate *large* gaggles, but no one
has figured out a good way to do it.

> My theory is that ignorance shows more profoundly low and fast than
> high and slow.

If by ignorance, you mean "poor judgement", I agree with you, and I
think this is the theory behind the finish cylinders, isn't it?



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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Kilo Charlie]

It's interesting to me that finishing through the gate is one of the few
times during a contest day that I feel safest. I am much more worried about
the unseen glider pulling up into me as I'm thermalling out on course or the
prestart gaggle mess. Even the threat of getting low over "tiger country"
worries me way more than finishing. And as far as I can tell the facts bear
this all out wrt where midair's occur and what landing damage is done. As
Chris has stated finishing is the one point in the race that I know where
everyone is coming from and heading to.

I agree with the analogy of aerobatics and precision maneuvers. Racing is
not for everybody just like flying gliders is not. If you are extremely
worried and scared (or your loved ones are) when you head to the airport
then I'd suggest that this is not the best choice of sports for you. Tom
Knauff has done a good job of disproving the idea that the most dangerous
part of flying is the drive to the field. I hope that this doesn't insult
you guys trying to argue the what you feel is the safety point. Your hearts
are in the right place.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Marc Ramsey]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> Tom Knauff has done a good job of disproving the idea that the most dangerous
> part of flying is the drive to the field. I hope that this doesn't insult
> you guys trying to argue the what you feel is the safety point. Your hearts
> are in the right place.

==
There are relatively few pilots who believe others are impressed by a
low altitude pass. (Sort of like teenage burning rubber, thinking it
impresses others.) In fact, the pilot usually needs to gain extra
altitude in the final thermal in order to have the necessary energy,
wasting precious time. The better pilot only climbs to the altitude
necessary and then flies the correct speed-to-fly all the way home,
perhaps increasing the airspeed slightly to use up the safety margin
altitude, in the final miles.

Really good pilots don't need to show off. They demonstrate their skills
on the score sheet.
==

The above is a quote from Tom Knauff's last email newsletter, hopefully
he won't mind my posting it here. I just like to race and get home in
one piece. I want to minimize the chances of screwing up, or being
subject to someone elses screw up, after I finish. Maybe you'll
understand, someday...

regards,
Marc

[BTIZ]

I thought finish "gates" moved to a line or cylinder at altitude away from
the airport.. like the start gates did with the advent of GPS recordings

BT

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> We successfully fly our sailplanes by keeping our options open, don't
> we? We keep an extra 300 feet in the pattern, just in case we hit a
> bunch of sink, don't we? On the ridge we keep our speed up and always
> have an escape route, don't we?
>
> Why then, do we continue to use a finish gate that reduces our options
> to just one? When we finish at 50 feet we must immediately exchange our
> speed for altitude and hope there isn't somebody above us as we make a
> beautiful climbing turn to down-wind. What if we suddenly see someone
> else in the pattern? What if we see 3 other ships in the pattern? Been
> there, done that! I abandoned any thought of putting it on the runway
> and lined up on the taxiway, just to see one of the other ships make
> the same decision and cut inside me. We rolled to a stop, not 15 feet
> apart.
>
> Over the years I have paid my competitive dues by volunteering to run
> contests. I have been the Competition Director in 3 Nationals and a
> Regionals in the last 30 years. I will not subject myself, the pilots
> or the organization to the liability involved in using a finish gate
> that I consider outmoded, unnecessary and unsafe. We have an option,
> don't we?
>
> JJ Sinclair
>

[Marc Ramsey]

BTIZ wrote:
> I thought finish "gates" moved to a line or cylinder at altitude away from
> the airport.. like the start gates did with the advent of GPS recordings

The current SSA regional/national rules leave the contest director with
the option of using either a finish cylinder with a specified minimum
finish height (usually 500 to 1000 ft), or a finish gate with a 50 ft
minimum height. When using a finish gate, it needs to be adjacent to the
runway, or the worm burners won't be able to make it home...

Marc

[Andy Blackburn]

I was just doing some polar math.

Let's say I'm on a Mc = 0 final glide in my ASW-27B.
I cross the finish cylinder boundary at 500' and 60
knots (best L/D dry). I'm now 1 sm from the airport
center. I fly at best L/D and reach the airfield with
about 380' of altitude. This is about the same altitude
I'd have if I'd crossed a finish gate at 100 knots
and 50 feet then pulled up.

If on the other hand I cross the cylinder at 150 knots
and 500' I will reach the airfield at 50', still at
150 knots. After my pullup I will have something more
than 900'. I know which scenario I prefer.

It's all about total energy. If you think total energy
is more about 500' of altitude than an extra 90 knots
of airspeed I suggest you do the math.

My suggestion is to keep these issues the domain of
the CD and contest organizers. They understand best
the local airport and traffic patterns and the nature
of the local conditions. Low total energy finishes
should be (and are) subject to penalty at the CD's
discretion. It's easy enough to judge off of GPS logs
now.

9B

At 00:00 12 March 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
wrote:
> > First, when do you pull in a cylinder finish?
>
>How about when it's clear? There's no hurry, unlike
>being 50 feet off
>the ground.
>
>> When the
>> gps goes beep? How do I know mine will go beep in
>>sequence with yours?
>> What if I delay my pull?
>
>I'm guessing you'd continue in the direction you are
>headed. Since you
>are 500' in the air, this shouldn't cause any heartburn.
>
>> What risk am I taking? What are the speed
>> differentials among the gliders in the gaggle? With
>>a finish line, high
>> and low energy aircraft separate naturally.
>
>You'll have to explain how this happens. I've seen
>high and low speed
>gliders close together at finish lines, and if the
>high speed glider is
>lower than the others, watch out! He's eager to climb
>up to pattern
>height and isn't going to coast along for another 1000'
>or so.
>
>> Will the pilot above and
>> behind me pushing to redline notice I'm in front flying
>>at best L/D in
>> an attempt to avoid missing the bottom of the cyliner?
>
>He's safe - he'll separate from you when he pulls up,
>and you aren't
>going to pull up. That's a good situation. It seems
>unlikely he won't
>see you ahead of him as he approaches. I've seen the
>same situation
>finish gates, anyway.
>
> And where is the
>> cylinder? Why, it's right there on my instrument panel!
>>Next to the
>> altimeter, my other sore distraction.
>
>I think if you can keep track of the other gliders
>zooming into a finish
>line from various altitudes and angles, you'd be able
>to manage a finish
>cylinder. At least, as you approach the cylinder, the
>gliders that will
>enter the cylinder near you are all going the same
>direction you are,
>which is often not true at a finish line.
>
>> When was the last time we wanted to ban gaggles for
>>safety reasons?
>
>I think most of us have wanted to elimanate *large*
>gaggles, but no one
>has figured out a good way to do it.
>
>> My theory is that ignorance shows more profoundly
>>low and fast than
>> high and slow.
>
>If by ignorance, you mean 'poor judgement', I agree
>with you, and I
>think this is the theory behind the finish cylinders,
>isn't it?
>
>
>
>--
>Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly
>
>Eric Greenwell
>Washington State
>USA
>

[Marc Ramsey]

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Let's say I'm on a Mc = 0 final glide in my ASW-27B.
> I cross the finish cylinder boundary at 500' and 60
> knots (best L/D dry). I'm now 1 sm from the airport
> center. I fly at best L/D and reach the airfield with
> about 380' of altitude. This is about the same altitude
> I'd have if I'd crossed a finish gate at 100 knots
> and 50 feet then pulled up.
>
> If on the other hand I cross the cylinder at 150 knots
> and 500' I will reach the airfield at 50', still at
> 150 knots. After my pullup I will have something more
> than 900'. I know which scenario I prefer.

What, exactly, is your point? This makes no sense...

Marc

[Kilo Charlie]

Don't argue with 9B re the logic of the math issue....trust me....he's a
very bright guy and never leaves his calculator! He is offering the
mathematical explanation of why cylinder finishes may not be any safer. Of
course it supports my point so I'm thinkin' he's a rad dude!

It's been a good discussion guys.....hope that all of you have a super
weekend of soaring whatever height you choose to finish!

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Marc Ramsey]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> Don't argue with 9B re the logic of the math issue....trust me....he's a
> very bright guy and never leaves his calculator! He is offering the
> mathematical explanation of why cylinder finishes may not be any safer. Of
> course it supports my point so I'm thinkin' he's a rad dude!

Hmm, I pegged him for a lawyer or politician, the numbers may have some
basis in reality (assuming you fly in a vacuum), but the logic is, uh,
"interesting".

> It's been a good discussion guys.....hope that all of you have a super
> weekend of soaring whatever height you choose to finish!

Agreed...

Marc

[Marc Ramsey]

Kilo Charlie wrote:
> Don't argue with 9B re the logic of the math issue....trust me....he's a
> very bright guy and never leaves his calculator! He is offering the
> mathematical explanation of why cylinder finishes may not be any safer. Of
> course it supports my point so I'm thinkin' he's a rad dude!

Hmm, I pegged him for a lawyer or politician, the numbers may have some
basis in reality (assuming you fly in a vacuum), but the logic is, uh,
"interesting".

> It's been a good discussion guys.....hope that all of you have a super
> weekend of soaring whatever height you choose to finish!

Agreed...

Marc

[BTIZ]

well... as most finishes would be at worm burner speeds even for the
cylinder, not bet L/D speed... at least you would start the "zoom" from
100knts and 500ft higher? even if 1/2 mile from the runway instead of 10 ft
over it.

flying the cylinder at best L/d would be conservative if you were going to
barely make it home.. I would think

BT

"Kilo Charlie" > wrote in message
news:m6uYd.43315$FM3.18415@fed1read02...
> Don't argue with 9B re the logic of the math issue....trust me....he's a
> very bright guy and never leaves his calculator! He is offering the
> mathematical explanation of why cylinder finishes may not be any safer.
> Of course it supports my point so I'm thinkin' he's a rad dude!
>
> It's been a good discussion guys.....hope that all of you have a super
> weekend of soaring whatever height you choose to finish!
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix
>

[Nick Gilbert]

I never said it was for everyone....But those who wish to do it shouldnt be
stopped by those who dont.

Nick.

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
>
>>
>>I think it should be treated as any other aerobatic
>>manouver.
>
>
> Ahhh, hmmm....let's see if I understand this concept...
>
> Unsynchronized group aerobatics done at low level and
> high speed...in the landing pattern of an open airport....by
> fatigued pilots.
>
> Thanks but no thanks.
>
>
>

[Nick Gilbert]

You are missing the point... it is fun!!

From what statistics does your 'relatively few pilots' line come from? Are
we talking about contest pilots? Regular weekend flyers? I would say that
80% of the contest pilots I know love to do it. This is not to say that they
deliberatly climb higher than necessary to facilitate it, but there are
occasions when you get 10kt climbs when you already have final glide. In
this case it is worthwhile to pull up so you can come back at a faster
speed.

Nick.

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
. com...
> Kilo Charlie wrote:
>> Tom Knauff has done a good job of disproving the idea that the most
>> dangerous part of flying is the drive to the field. I hope that this
>> doesn't insult you guys trying to argue the what you feel is the safety
>> point. Your hearts are in the right place.
>
> ==
> There are relatively few pilots who believe others are impressed by a low
> altitude pass. (Sort of like teenage burning rubber, thinking it impresses
> others.) In fact, the pilot usually needs to gain extra altitude in the
> final thermal in order to have the necessary energy, wasting precious
> time. The better pilot only climbs to the altitude necessary and then
> flies the correct speed-to-fly all the way home, perhaps increasing the
> airspeed slightly to use up the safety margin altitude, in the final
> miles.
>
> Really good pilots don't need to show off. They demonstrate their skills
> on the score sheet.
> ==
>
> The above is a quote from Tom Knauff's last email newsletter, hopefully he
> won't mind my posting it here. I just like to race and get home in one
> piece. I want to minimize the chances of screwing up, or being subject to
> someone elses screw up, after I finish. Maybe you'll understand,
> someday...
>
> regards,
> Marc

[Nick Gilbert]

My point is that people should be shown how to do it as safely as possible.

Nick.

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
>
>>
>>I think it should be treated as any other aerobatic
>>manouver.
>
>
> Ahhh, hmmm....let's see if I understand this concept...
>
> Unsynchronized group aerobatics done at low level and
> high speed...in the landing pattern of an open airport....by
> fatigued pilots.
>
> Thanks but no thanks.
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

"If by ignorance, you mean "poor judgement", I agree with you, and I
think this is the theory behind the finish cylinders, isn't it?"

No... the cylinder is a placebo. Ignorance (and its primary effect -
poor judgement) are dangerous anywhere. The finish cylinder presents
the very same problems as the old high speed start gate. Next time you
see Rick Indrebo, ask him about separation of traffic.

I'll give you an example of a lack of situational awareness. You
responded to the following:

>Will the pilot above and
> behind me pushing to redline notice I'm in front flying at best L/D
in
> an attempt to avoid missing the bottom of the cyliner?

"He's safe - he'll separate from you when he pulls up, and you aren't
going to pull up. That's a good situation. It seems unlikely he won't
see you ahead of him as he approaches. I've seen the same situation
finish gates, anyway"

Eric, he'll never pull up because he just flew through me several
hundred yards short of the gate. Been there. Seen it happen. Seen many
more come damn close. All your responses to my questions make
assumptions that aren't necessarily shared by all pilots. IE, the
cyclinder suffers the same problems that the finish gate does: it is
foiled by ignorance and resulting poor judgement.

The strongest arguement is that of density. A one mile radius circle
makes for alot more space than a 1 km line. Unless everyone is coming
home from the same turnpoint, in which case they are flying to the same
point, same altitude, and at a variety of speeds, with too much
attention on computers and altimeters. Implosion. And no regulation.
Performance information is on the panel, not outside.

The closest I've come to a midair in the past decade was at Hobbs two
years ago, in a 10-mile radius turn cylinder. I was distracted by
several gliders converging from about 45 degrees of arc to the very
extreme end of the turn area. I nearly hit someone below me as I
started my turn at the edge of the cylinder. I'm guessing at least half
the 15M nationals turned at that same point within about two minutes of
each other. So much for density management. At least we were all doing
about the same speed: 90 knots. So things happened pretty slowly. Let's
throw in some 60 and 140 knot traffic at the other end of the task,
just to keep things interesting.

As I said before, ignorance is much more obvious at low and fast. But
it's not any less dangerous high and slow. I think the number of pilots
who don't read the rules before competing is an indication of where the
problems lie. If a pilot is unwilling to take two hours to read the
rules, then he probably hasn't given much thought to the environment
he'll be flying in. This equals IGNORANCE.

[[email protected]]

Yeah, well, Tom is getting old too. For many of us, it's not about
showing off. It's the satisfaction of doing something well. Otherwise,
what's the point of flying at all?

[Andy Blackburn]

At 05:00 12 March 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Kilo Charlie wrote:
>> Don't argue with 9B re the logic of the math issue....trust
>>me....he's a
>> very bright guy and never leaves his calculator!
>>He is offering the
>> mathematical explanation of why cylinder finishes
>>may not be any safer. Of
>> course it supports my point so I'm thinkin' he's a
>>rad dude!
>
>Hmm, I pegged him for a lawyer or politician, the numbers
>may have some
>basis in reality (assuming you fly in a vacuum), but
>the logic is, uh,
>'interesting'.

The point was pretty simple - I added the analysis
because without it I'm just a guy with an opinion (no
shortage of those here). So here's the point in simple
language: A low energy finish at 500' and 1 sm is
not significantly 'safer' than a low energy finish
at 50' over the airport. Either way you will be low
and slow in the pattern.

The numbers assume viscous, incompressible flow - gliders
can't fly in a vacuum. Bet you knew that. ;-)

9B

[Marc Ramsey]

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> The point was pretty simple - I added the analysis
> because without it I'm just a guy with an opinion (no
> shortage of those here). So here's the point in simple
> language: A low energy finish at 500' and 1 sm is
> not significantly 'safer' than a low energy finish
> at 50' over the airport. Either way you will be low
> and slow in the pattern.

Your analysis is flawed, because you miss one little point. Let's assume
we're comparing a finish gate adjacent to the center of the runway, and
a 1 mile radius cylinder centered on the runway. If you hold all other
factors constant, in particular the altitude at which you leave the last
thermal and the speed at which fly the final glide, if you pull up to
best glide at 1 mile you will always end up over the runway as high (if
your are already flying at best glide) or higher than if you pull up at
the gate. In other words, if you are low energy at 1 mile, you will
have as low or lower energy if you don't pull up until you reach the
gate, because you can't recover the drag you lose by flying faster than
best glide for the last mile.

Now, if you assume that you leave the last thermal when the computer
says final glide is made (or you leave with a constant offset from the
computer indication), then the 500 foot 1 mile case will require that
you climb higher, as it obviously takes less energy to get to the gate
at 50 feet (unless you are flying final glide at a speed where your L/D
is less than 10:1, which is ridiculous in modern gliders). You will
start a marginal final glide with more energy in the cylinder case, than
you will in the gate case. If your final climb is capped by the height
of the thermal, then you may have to opt for a rolling finish using a
cylinder, and still be able to make a gate finish, but you will be
making that final glide at essentially best glide, and have no energy
left to pull up after you go through the gate.

My point is also pretty simple. In no realistic case will you ever end
up with more energy for landing by delaying your pull-up until you reach
the airport. You will always end up with more energy over the airport
by making a final glide to 1 mile and 500 feet. This also means that
you have more margin for screw ups in the cylinder case.

> The numbers assume viscous, incompressible flow - gliders
> can't fly in a vacuum. Bet you knew that. ;-)

I do, but I'm not so sure you do. The exchange of energy implied by
your pullup from 50 feet at 150 knots that results in "something more
than 900'", either includes no losses for drag or you're doing a tail
slide at the top. If you have a trace where you actually manage to pull
up to 900 feet above your finish altitude, I'd love to see it...

Marc

[Bob Korves]

With a center of airport 50' finish you still need to do a pattern including
up to three 90 degree turns after finishing (ignoring rolling finishes).
With a 500'/1 mile cylinder you can do a straight in or several possible
patterns, and you don't need to go to the center of the airport first, so
the distance is really 3/4 mile or much less to a downwind or base leg.
-Bob Korves

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
...
> Andy Blackburn wrote:
> > The point was pretty simple - I added the analysis
> > because without it I'm just a guy with an opinion (no
> > shortage of those here). So here's the point in simple
> > language: A low energy finish at 500' and 1 sm is
> > not significantly 'safer' than a low energy finish
> > at 50' over the airport. Either way you will be low
> > and slow in the pattern.
>
> Your analysis is flawed, because you miss one little point. Let's assume
> we're comparing a finish gate adjacent to the center of the runway, and
> a 1 mile radius cylinder centered on the runway. If you hold all other
> factors constant, in particular the altitude at which you leave the last
> thermal and the speed at which fly the final glide, if you pull up to
> best glide at 1 mile you will always end up over the runway as high (if
> your are already flying at best glide) or higher than if you pull up at
> the gate. In other words, if you are low energy at 1 mile, you will
> have as low or lower energy if you don't pull up until you reach the
> gate, because you can't recover the drag you lose by flying faster than
> best glide for the last mile.
>
> Now, if you assume that you leave the last thermal when the computer
> says final glide is made (or you leave with a constant offset from the
> computer indication), then the 500 foot 1 mile case will require that
> you climb higher, as it obviously takes less energy to get to the gate
> at 50 feet (unless you are flying final glide at a speed where your L/D
> is less than 10:1, which is ridiculous in modern gliders). You will
> start a marginal final glide with more energy in the cylinder case, than
> you will in the gate case. If your final climb is capped by the height
> of the thermal, then you may have to opt for a rolling finish using a
> cylinder, and still be able to make a gate finish, but you will be
> making that final glide at essentially best glide, and have no energy
> left to pull up after you go through the gate.
>
> My point is also pretty simple. In no realistic case will you ever end
> up with more energy for landing by delaying your pull-up until you reach
> the airport. You will always end up with more energy over the airport
> by making a final glide to 1 mile and 500 feet. This also means that
> you have more margin for screw ups in the cylinder case.
>
> > The numbers assume viscous, incompressible flow - gliders
> > can't fly in a vacuum. Bet you knew that. ;-)
>
> I do, but I'm not so sure you do. The exchange of energy implied by
> your pullup from 50 feet at 150 knots that results in "something more
> than 900'", either includes no losses for drag or you're doing a tail
> slide at the top. If you have a trace where you actually manage to pull
> up to 900 feet above your finish altitude, I'd love to see it...
>
> Marc

[Andy Blackburn]

At 00:30 13 March 2005, Bob Korves wrote:

>patterns, and you don't need to go to the center of
>the airport first, so
>the distance is really 3/4 mile or much less to a downwind
>or base leg.

Actually it's 50/50 as to whether it's 3/4 or 1-1/4
mi depending which side of the pattern you're finishing
on. Of course you can always do a rolling finish, but
that's true of the gate too.

Like I said, I don't see one type of finish as obviously
safer than another from an energy perspective - I've
flown both a fair number of times. The thing I do find
a little troubling about the cylinder is that it can
be a more 'head's down' process, since it's impossible
to 'eyeball' the cylinder either in terms of height
or location. This means that some pilots will be looking
at their computers rather than outside at exactly the
wrong time. I don't think its a huge deal, since most
pilots don't try to cut it that close anyway.

Also, I don't think there's anything in the rules that
says you can't do a pass over the field after a cylinder
finish is there?

9B

[Bob Korves]

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> At 00:30 13 March 2005, Bob Korves wrote:
(snip)
> Actually it's 50/50 as to whether it's 3/4 or 1-1/4
> mi depending which side of the pattern you're finishing
> on. (snip)
> 9B

Well, if you are worried about being low on energy and then go an extra 1/2
mile to the other side of the field...
-Bob Korves

[Andy Blackburn]

>Well, if you are worried about being low on energy
>and then go an extra 1/2
>mile to the other side of the field...

...then JJ won't report you to the FAA for performing
an illegal pattern. I think most of this discussion
has been about whether you can create rules that will
protect pilots from doing exactly this sort of thing
- stretching too far to go to the 'legal' pattern entry
point - or trying to do a pullup instead of a rolling
finish. Both are errors in judgement resulting from
a marginal, but legal, finish.

9B

[Mark James Boyd]

Marc,

How many CDs choose cyclinders? Of theses cyclinders, how many
are centered at the airport, and how many are remote (centered away
from) the airport?

If remote, are they 2-5km out at 1000ft minimum? What is the
cylinder radius? Is it 1/2km like the previous poster's
"control point"?

For us non-contest guys, this is quite interesting...

In article >,
Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>BTIZ wrote:
>> I thought finish "gates" moved to a line or cylinder at altitude away from
>> the airport.. like the start gates did with the advent of GPS recordings
>
>The current SSA regional/national rules leave the contest director with
>the option of using either a finish cylinder with a specified minimum
>finish height (usually 500 to 1000 ft), or a finish gate with a 50 ft
>minimum height. When using a finish gate, it needs to be adjacent to the
>runway, or the worm burners won't be able to make it home...
>
>Marc


--

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

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> How many CDs choose cyclinders? Of theses cyclinders, how many
> are centered at the airport, and how many are remote (centered away
> from) the airport?
>
> If remote, are they 2-5km out at 1000ft minimum? What is the
> cylinder radius? Is it 1/2km like the previous poster's
> "control point"?

A finish cylinder doesn't have to be remote, as you pull up at the edge,
not the center. If you need to keep high speed finishers away from the
airport, you increase the radius (up to a maximum of 4 miles) and raise
the floor.

I've flown in five sanctioned contests that used GPS finishes (I also
did the finish gate dance in pre-GPS days). Of those, four used finish
cylinders and one used a finish gate.

Out of the four cylinders, all were centered on the airport (at an
identifiable point, like a wind triangle), two (Montague and Tonopah)
used the standard 1 mile radius and 500 foot floor, the other two were
at Minden where a 2 mile radius and 1000 foot floor is used, to minimize
conflicts with non-contest traffic.

The finish gate was used at Avenal, the standard 1 km wide, adjacent and
running perpendicular to the center of the west side of the runway.

Marc

[Mal.com]

I love a good beat up.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Yeah, well, Tom is getting old too. For many of us, it's not about
> showing off. It's the satisfaction of doing something well. Otherwise,
> what's the point of flying at all?
>

[Mark James Boyd]

That makes a lot of sense to me. Avenal is really just
flat fields everywhere. And I can see how deconflicting with other
traffic is important (although Minden seems pretty lightly
used for GA).

I guess remote cylinders or remote control points are
either not available to CDs or just not popular. 1000ft
seems like a lot of altitude to sort things out, so maybe this isn't
that critical, and at a huge airport like Avenal or Minden
(with lots of runways) it seems like there are still lots of options
even at low energy.

Thanks for the response!

In article >,
Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>> How many CDs choose cyclinders? Of theses cyclinders, how many
>> are centered at the airport, and how many are remote (centered away
>> from) the airport?
>>
>> If remote, are they 2-5km out at 1000ft minimum? What is the
>> cylinder radius? Is it 1/2km like the previous poster's
>> "control point"?
>
>A finish cylinder doesn't have to be remote, as you pull up at the edge,
>not the center. If you need to keep high speed finishers away from the
>airport, you increase the radius (up to a maximum of 4 miles) and raise
>the floor.
>
>I've flown in five sanctioned contests that used GPS finishes (I also
>did the finish gate dance in pre-GPS days). Of those, four used finish
>cylinders and one used a finish gate.
>
>Out of the four cylinders, all were centered on the airport (at an
>identifiable point, like a wind triangle), two (Montague and Tonopah)
>used the standard 1 mile radius and 500 foot floor, the other two were
>at Minden where a 2 mile radius and 1000 foot floor is used, to minimize
>conflicts with non-contest traffic.
>
>The finish gate was used at Avenal, the standard 1 km wide, adjacent and
>running perpendicular to the center of the west side of the runway.
>
>Marc


--

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