Neanderthat vs. Wuss Gate

[[email protected]]

Let me tell you where I'm coming from on this gate issue. I was CD'ing
one of the Montague nationals and we were using the finish line. The
only practical location for the line was the edge of the X'ed-off
runway, but there were several competitors tied down there (read cars,
wives & kids) One of the wives complained about the low finishes coming
right over her motor home and asked if there wasn't an FAR about that?
I didn't have an answer, I still don't. As I understand the FAR's we
are not allowed to fly over people below 500 feet unless we are in the
act of landing. When we are driving in on the 50-foot gate, we are not
in the act of landing, but we are over people at Montague and the same
situation exists at Minden. If we were to move the line, say 500 feet
away from the people, we would end up with a low and slow finisher
landing in the sage brush.
God forbid, if we were to have a mid-air and the wreckage went into the
line, I guarantee you the feds would come down hard on what we are
doing.

The finish line seems to work OK at places like Hobbs, but I did have
an incident there last summer. I was driving in hard toward the 50 foot
finish line when a pilot from the other class called a rolling finish,
coming from the opposite direction. We didn't even come close, but
let's assume for the sake of discussion that we did run into each
other. One pilot is below 500 feet and in the act of landing. The other
pilot is below 500 feet and not in the act of landing. I know who's
going to lose this one, old JJ.

I have flown the finish cylinder at Reese, Parowan, Minden, Montague
and Ephrata without a hitch. Everybody pulls up, slows up, and enters
the pattern in an orderly fashion; low man goes in first. Based on my
30 years experience of using both gates and running contests, I would
estimate the finish cylinder to be on the order of 2 to 3 times safer
than the 50-foot finish line. Good management involves identifying
problems and taking corrective action, before we have an accident.
There is a better way to do this, let's bury the Neanderthal gate, once
and for all.

JJ Sinclair
PS. It's not widely known, but you don't need to make the 500 foot
minimum exactly at 1 mile. You will get a good finish anywhere inside
the cylinder, just as soon as you pull up and climb above the 500 foot
minimum. No penalty will apply, your clock just keeps running for a few
more seconds. This interpretation has been blessed by the rules
committee and the Byars scoring program works this way.

[Andy Blackburn]

At 16:30 13 March 2005, wrote:
>PS. It's not widely known, but you don't need to make
>the 500 foot
>minimum exactly at 1 mile. You will get a good finish
>anywhere inside
>the cylinder, just as soon as you pull up and climb
>above the 500 foot
>minimum. No penalty will apply, your clock just keeps
>running for a few
>more seconds. This interpretation has been blessed
>by the rules
>committee and the Byars scoring program works this
>way.

Interesting JJ.

I checked an example to see if there's a competitive
advantage in diving for the cylinder. Let's say you
are at 900', 2 nm from the cylinder on a Mc=5 glide.
If you stay on this path you will reach the cylinder
in 75 seconds at 500'. If you choose to accelerate
to Mc=10, you will take about 60 seconds to reach the
cylinder at 50' with enough energy to pull up to 500'
with 60 knots (this includes time for the pullup).
You save 15 seconds, which is worth 1-2 points on a
2-3 hour task. Of course this leaves you a mile from
home with little airspeed or altitude since you used
what excess energy you would have had to go faster.
Goodness only knows what a pilot might do if his pullup
leaves him a bit short. According to KC one pilot ended
up spinning at low altitude - apparently trying some
similar maneuver. But it's all within the current rules
for finish cylinders.

JJ has observed more incidents with the gate - my personal
experience has seen a more issues with the cylinder.
Two examples come to mind from last year:

In one case a bunch of gliders all declared downwind
at once, even though they had finished several minutes
apart. It took some back and forth on the radio to
sort it out and some extended/shortened patterns. Normally
with a gate finish the arrival sequence does an okay
good job of setting up landing order. In this case
with finishers at all different altitudes, speeds and
directions, the '4 mile' call doesn't give you a very
good sense of who you're landing behind so we had to
sort it out all over again on downwind.

My second example involves a final course leg that
passed by a CB about 4 miles from the airport. Many
pilots held extra altitude until past the cell, then
dove for the cylinder. I finished several thousand
feet high and as I pulled up encountered another glider
with full divebrakes deployed to my left on a course
perpendicular to mine. Apparently he had finished even
higher and decided to let down by flying along the
edge of the cylinder. In my experience with gates most
finishers are going more or less the same direction
and are at more or less the same altitude for a given
speed. The cylinder seems to scatter this a fair bit
and generates more mixed traffic milling about on potentially
converging courses.

I'm not asserting that one form of finishing is inherently
safer than the other, just that they each have a set
of issues that require pilots to have good situational
awareness and exert reasonable judgement. I think
these are qualities that are not easily made up for
through legislation. I also strongly believe we should
defer to the judgement of the CD and the organizers
in setting up operations that suit the site - Parowan
is not Hobbs, Minden is different from Sugarbush.

Can you hear my knuckles dragging?

9B

[Mark James Boyd]

LOL. Nice new thread title.

JJ,

How do you feel about remote finish cylinders (away from the airport)?
How about control points (last turnpoints) away from the airport?

Do you think this would have any benefit? Have you flown either
of these (presumably in other countries)?

In article . com>,
> wrote:
>Let me tell you where I'm coming from on this gate issue. I was CD'ing
>one of the Montague nationals and we were using the finish line. The
>only practical location for the line was the edge of the X'ed-off
>runway, but there were several competitors tied down there (read cars,
>wives & kids) One of the wives complained about the low finishes coming
>right over her motor home and asked if there wasn't an FAR about that?
>I didn't have an answer, I still don't. As I understand the FAR's we
>are not allowed to fly over people below 500 feet unless we are in the
>act of landing. When we are driving in on the 50-foot gate, we are not
>in the act of landing, but we are over people at Montague and the same
>situation exists at Minden. If we were to move the line, say 500 feet
>away from the people, we would end up with a low and slow finisher
>landing in the sage brush.
>God forbid, if we were to have a mid-air and the wreckage went into the
>line, I guarantee you the feds would come down hard on what we are
>doing.
>
>The finish line seems to work OK at places like Hobbs, but I did have
>an incident there last summer. I was driving in hard toward the 50 foot
>finish line when a pilot from the other class called a rolling finish,
>coming from the opposite direction. We didn't even come close, but
>let's assume for the sake of discussion that we did run into each
>other. One pilot is below 500 feet and in the act of landing. The other
>pilot is below 500 feet and not in the act of landing. I know who's
>going to lose this one, old JJ.
>
>I have flown the finish cylinder at Reese, Parowan, Minden, Montague
>and Ephrata without a hitch. Everybody pulls up, slows up, and enters
>the pattern in an orderly fashion; low man goes in first. Based on my
>30 years experience of using both gates and running contests, I would
>estimate the finish cylinder to be on the order of 2 to 3 times safer
>than the 50-foot finish line. Good management involves identifying
>problems and taking corrective action, before we have an accident.
>There is a better way to do this, let's bury the Neanderthal gate, once
>and for all.
>
>JJ Sinclair
>PS. It's not widely known, but you don't need to make the 500 foot
>minimum exactly at 1 mile. You will get a good finish anywhere inside
>the cylinder, just as soon as you pull up and climb above the 500 foot
>minimum. No penalty will apply, your clock just keeps running for a few
>more seconds. This interpretation has been blessed by the rules
>committee and the Byars scoring program works this way.
>


--

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

[Marc Ramsey]

Mark James Boyd wrote:
> How do you feel about remote finish cylinders (away from the airport)?

Uh, remote finish cylinders or gates are not such a great idea, because
you ultimately have to land at the airport. Of course they could put
the floor way up high, but that would be really annoying.

> How about control points (last turnpoints) away from the airport?

They are not needed for cylinders, but they are helpful for gates.

> Do you think this would have any benefit? Have you flown either
> of these (presumably in other countries)?

The Annual CCSC Contest at Avenal is less than two months away.
Everyone from first-timers to grizzled veterans is welcome, and they
loves their finish gate. There is also a PASCO League contest at Avenal
a weekend or two before, where you will likely experience a finish
cylinder. Rather than engaging in endless speculation, why don't you
just reserve the PW-5 and go for it?

Marc

[[email protected]]

In response to your first paragraph, at aiports all over the country
aircraft come within less than 500 feet of structures and people at
speeds above 150 mph thousands of times each day, every day of the
year. Midway, Reagan National, and Laguardia all have approaches that
bring them over people and buildings. I have on many occasions watched
landings from a park several hunderd feet from the threshold of one of
Reagan National's runways. Planes pass overhead no more than 200 feet
above the ground.

The rule, as I recall, states "except for take-off and landing..." Note
that most CDs post NOTAMs closing the airport during contest launch and
recovery operations. This implies a tacit waiver for a variety of
soaring related operations in the vicinity of the airport.

As for a the owner of mobile home, parked on the airport during a
scheduled, sanctioned soaring contest asking for a change in
practices, I'd be tempted to point at the wheels and leave my answer at
that. But that wouldn't be very diplo. Perhaps a better way to address
it would be to require RVs stay out of the way of glider operations.
You can park your RV here. This will avoid any conflict with aircraft.
I'll bet the argument goes the other way... convenience over perceived
safety issues. Its just a matter of crafting the either/or.

As for the cylinder, in another thread someone suggested I not pull up
after piercing the side, but just bleed off speed as I head towards the
airport. Now I have pilots attacking me from below. How much drag does
a ball turret gun cost?

[toad]

Regarding the difficulty of sequencing gliders for landing after a
cylinder finish, this is exactly what gliders do every good soaring
day. All the gliders arrive from all directions at about pattern
altitude, do some sort of pattern entry, then land. Sometimes a bunch
of gliders all do this at the same time. We practice this all the
time, not just in contest flying. So at least this form of finish gets
practiced all the time.

Todd
3S

[John Sinclair]

We solved the problem by simply switching to the finish
cylinder, no complaints.

At 01:00 16 March 2005, wrote:
>In response to your first paragraph, at aiports all
>over the country
>aircraft come within less than 500 feet of structures
>and people at
>speeds above 150 mph thousands of times each day, every
>day of the
>year. Midway, Reagan National, and Laguardia all have
>approaches that
>bring them over people and buildings. I have on many
>occasions watched
>landings from a park several hunderd feet from the
>threshold of one of
>Reagan National's runways. Planes pass overhead no
>more than 200 feet
>above the ground.
>
>The rule, as I recall, states 'except for take-off
>and landing...' Note
>that most CDs post NOTAMs closing the airport during
>contest launch and
>recovery operations. This implies a tacit waiver for
>a variety of
>soaring related operations in the vicinity of the airport.
>
>As for a the owner of mobile home, parked on the airport
>during a
>scheduled, sanctioned soaring contest asking for a
>change in
>practices, I'd be tempted to point at the wheels and
>leave my answer at
>that. But that wouldn't be very diplo. Perhaps a better
>way to address
>it would be to require RVs stay out of the way of glider
>operations.
>You can park your RV here. This will avoid any conflict
>with aircraft.
>I'll bet the argument goes the other way... convenience
>over perceived
>safety issues. Its just a matter of crafting the either/or.
>
>As for the cylinder, in another thread someone suggested
>I not pull up
>after piercing the side, but just bleed off speed as
>I head towards the
>airport. Now I have pilots attacking me from below.
>How much drag does
>a ball turret gun cost?
>
>

[Andy Blackburn]

At 02:00 16 March 2005, Toad wrote:
>Regarding the difficulty of sequencing gliders for
>landing after a
>cylinder finish, this is exactly what gliders do every
>good soaring
>day.

Never had a problem myself on a typical non-contest
day without a finish cylinder. So why do you think
problems arise with cylinders in contest situations?


My theory is that the modern GPS-enabled minimum-time
tasks compress finishers more than the old system and
the cylinder introduces just enough randomness to reshuffle
the landing sequence from the finish sequence. The
net result is a bit more 'pattern roulette' than I
knew from gate finishes in the old AST world. Not
a problem for pilots who exert good judgement and use
the radio - potentially an issue for those who don't.

9B

[toad]

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> At 02:00 16 March 2005, Toad wrote:
> >Regarding the difficulty of sequencing gliders for
> >landing after a
> >cylinder finish, this is exactly what gliders do every
> >good soaring
> >day.
>
> Never had a problem myself on a typical non-contest
> day without a finish cylinder. So why do you think
> problems arise with cylinders in contest situations?

I have never had or seen a problem with the cylinder finish. It is also
the only finish type that I have used, since I started racing in 2002
and fly in sports class with my 20 year old glider.

I have seen plenty of "pattern roulette" at busy soaring sites on
non-contest days. Most of those patterns are non-events. Everybody
lands somewhere, leaving as much space as possible for the next guy.

Todd

[snoop]

The difference between the final at the airports you mentioned, and a
typical contest "pattern roulette" is that the aircraft landing are
configured, stabilized, sequenced, and know where their traffic is. No
comparison here.

A couple of years ago at Region 9 Hobbs, all the classes were arriving
from everywhere. The Standards were coming from the east, flying over
the ramp, turning left over the gate, then turning back to the east for
left traffic for the ramp, crossing over/under the other finishers.
Wow, what a show.

JJ's right.

wrote:
> In response to your first paragraph, at aiports all over the country
> aircraft come within less than 500 feet of structures and people at
> speeds above 150 mph thousands of times each day, every day of the
> year. Midway, Reagan National, and Laguardia all have approaches that
> bring them over people and buildings. I have on many occasions
watched
> landings from a park several hunderd feet from the threshold of one
of
> Reagan National's runways. Planes pass overhead no more than 200 feet
> above the ground.
>
> The rule, as I recall, states "except for take-off and landing..."
Note
> that most CDs post NOTAMs closing the airport during contest launch
and
> recovery operations. This implies a tacit waiver for a variety of
> soaring related operations in the vicinity of the airport.
>
> As for a the owner of mobile home, parked on the airport during a
> scheduled, sanctioned soaring contest asking for a change in
> practices, I'd be tempted to point at the wheels and leave my answer
at
> that. But that wouldn't be very diplo. Perhaps a better way to
address
> it would be to require RVs stay out of the way of glider operations.
> You can park your RV here. This will avoid any conflict with
aircraft.
> I'll bet the argument goes the other way... convenience over
perceived
> safety issues. Its just a matter of crafting the either/or.
>
> As for the cylinder, in another thread someone suggested I not pull
up
> after piercing the side, but just bleed off speed as I head towards
the
> airport. Now I have pilots attacking me from below. How much drag
does
> a ball turret gun cost?

[[email protected]]

Todd,

We run tasks at our club every weekend for anywhere from three to a
dozen pilots at a time. Even with local pilots added to the mix, it
doesn't even come close to simulating the contest environment, where
pilots tend to cluster as part of their competitive strategy.

It's a placebo, and a dangerous on at that. And while I have a
preference for the finish line, for a host of reasons, the very lack of
regulation in the cylinder finish makes me question its perceived
"safety."

[[email protected]]

JJ's concern was over proximity to persons and strucutres... no
difference, save the descending heavy is less controlable than the high
energy glider. As for "pattern roulette," dogmatic monikers don't
change the fact that competent pilots function well in the environment,
as has been proven again and again for decades. Where problems arise is
when unschooled pilots start imposing their poor judgement, generally
creating a world of hurt for themselves and occasionally others. My
argument, and I think it is a valid one, is that moving that poor
judgement a mile away from the airport doesn't solve any problems. It
simply makes them less obvious to casual observers. And the fact that
there appear to be so many theories purporting to explain the dynamics
of the finish cylinder indicates that this hasn't been particularly
well thought out either.

As an example, I can state without hesitation that inserting yourself
into the pattern after a finish with half a dozen other gliders is much
easier than joining the same number low in a weak thermal and
maintaining safe separation while maximizing climb. That is hard work,
and it's done with very few options for maneuvering should a member of
the gaggle decide to do something untoward. Or if someone else enters
who lacks skills or depth perception.

[toad]

wrote:
<snip>
> My
> argument, and I think it is a valid one, is that moving that poor
> judgement a mile away from the airport doesn't solve any problems.
<snip>

My point is that moving that poor judgement UP 500-1000 ft DOES help
solve problems.

Todd

[Andy Blackburn]

At 00:30 17 March 2005, Toad wrote:
>
>My point is that moving that poor judgement UP 500-1000
>ft DOES help
>solve problems.
>
>Todd

My experience is it introduces about as many as it
solves: mixed traffic between the cylinder edge and
the airport, re-sequencing of traffic from finish to
pattern entry, potential for low altitude thermalling
to make the 500 (or 1000) foot limit, ballistic pullups
below stall speed for the same reason, mixed finish
techniques leading to conflicts (pull-up or press on).
That's just the ones that have happened so far. Of
course none whould have happened had the pilots involved
exercised better judgement.

On the proximity issue, keep in mind that a low energy
finish on a 500' cylinder will have you less than 500'
from whatever you're flying over prior to entering
the landing pattern and therefore at least as much
in violation of any relevant FARs as a gate finisher.
My view after reading the regs is they both are legal.

Of course we cold solve all of this AND address the
15-minute rule if we just made the rules read that
you have to finish no lower than you start. Now THAT
would spice things up.

9B

[Marc Ramsey]

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> Of course we cold solve all of this AND address the
> 15-minute rule if we just made the rules read that
> you have to finish no lower than you start. Now THAT
> would spice things up.

This, I like 8^)