RE: SENIORS CONTEST

[Gordon Schubert]

Two gliderscoming in to the finish directly over the
runway. One at about 100 ft and the other at 150 ft.
The one at 150 ft is going about 30 knots faster than
the lower and flies over it just as the lower glider
is pulling up. Lower glider misses the one above by
approx. 5-10 ft. This happened directly in front of
me and probably 10 other people. It was mentioned by
Charlie Spratt at the pilots meeting.
GORDY

[Kilo Charlie]

"Gordon Schubert" > wrote in message
...
> Two gliderscoming in to the finish directly over the
> runway. One at about 100 ft and the other at 150 ft.
> The one at 150 ft is going about 30 knots faster than
> the lower and flies over it just as the lower glider
> is pulling up. Lower glider misses the one above by
> approx. 5-10 ft. This happened directly in front of
> me and probably 10 other people. It was mentioned by
> Charlie Spratt at the pilots meeting.
> GORDY

This brings up a point that I had not thought of......in a gate finish it is
possible to call others on the radio to report seeing them or to say that
you are "to the left side of the gate" or to say that you are overtaking
them and above, since it is in a focused area. With a cylinder finish there
is no way to really do this unless you see them directly. With numerous
finishes at the same time how would one report your position...."KC is on
the 240 radial to the finish center 4 miles out at 810 feet"??? I can hear
all of those type fixes being reported at a nationals with 30 finishes in 5
minutes. Oh ya.

Re the specific incident you report.....once again it was poor judgement and
pilotage on the overtaking pilots part. If the pilot that was being
overtaken called in at 4 miles prior to the other then it is the following
gliders responsiblity to locate him and if he does not see him then it is
his responsibility to report that. This is no different than what occurs at
nearly every controlled airport in the nation hourly. A gate at least
allows meaningful position fixes vs. the cylinder finish.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[John Sinclair]

This is a classic example of two gliders flying in
the other pilots 'blind spot'. Lower pilot can't see
above and behind, higher pilot can't see below and
in front, because the nose of his ship blocks his view
in this area. Both ships heades for the same point
in space. Some have reffered to this as a 'scheduled
mid-air', same point (GPS coordinates of gate), same
altitude (50 feet), the only remaining variable is
the timing of the event. Looks like the it was almost
perfect on this one. Come on guys, there is a better
way.
JJ Sinclair

At 04:30 16 March 2005, Gordon Schubert wrote:
>Two gliderscoming in to the finish directly over the
>runway. One at about 100 ft and the other at 150 ft.
>The one at 150 ft is going about 30 knots faster than
>the lower and flies over it just as the lower glider
>is pulling up. Lower glider misses the one above by
>approx. 5-10 ft. This happened directly in front of
>me and probably 10 other people. It was mentioned by
>Charlie Spratt at the pilots meeting.
>GORDY
>
>
>

[Bert Willing]

Finish gates without radio procedures are indeed a quite dumb thing to do.
I'd call that Darwin...

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"John Sinclair" > a écrit dans le
message de news: ...
> This is a classic example of two gliders flying in
> the other pilots 'blind spot'. Lower pilot can't see
> above and behind, higher pilot can't see below and
> in front, because the nose of his ship blocks his view
> in this area. Both ships heades for the same point
> in space. Some have reffered to this as a 'scheduled
> mid-air', same point (GPS coordinates of gate), same
> altitude (50 feet), the only remaining variable is
> the timing of the event. Looks like the it was almost
> perfect on this one. Come on guys, there is a better
> way.
> JJ Sinclair
>
> At 04:30 16 March 2005, Gordon Schubert wrote:
>>Two gliderscoming in to the finish directly over the
>>runway. One at about 100 ft and the other at 150 ft.
>>The one at 150 ft is going about 30 knots faster than
>>the lower and flies over it just as the lower glider
>>is pulling up. Lower glider misses the one above by
>>approx. 5-10 ft. This happened directly in front of
>>me and probably 10 other people. It was mentioned by
>>Charlie Spratt at the pilots meeting.
>>GORDY
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Gary Boggs]

Were these two guys using the radio at all? Why weren't they aware of each
other?
I can't imagine anyone doing a finish without announcing, how did this
happen?


"Bert Willing" > wrote in
message ...
> Finish gates without radio procedures are indeed a quite dumb thing to do.
> I'd call that Darwin...
>
> --
> Bert Willing
>
> ASW20 "TW"
>
>
> "John Sinclair" > a écrit dans le
> message de news: ...
>> This is a classic example of two gliders flying in
>> the other pilots 'blind spot'. Lower pilot can't see
>> above and behind, higher pilot can't see below and
>> in front, because the nose of his ship blocks his view
>> in this area. Both ships heades for the same point
>> in space. Some have reffered to this as a 'scheduled
>> mid-air', same point (GPS coordinates of gate), same
>> altitude (50 feet), the only remaining variable is
>> the timing of the event. Looks like the it was almost
>> perfect on this one. Come on guys, there is a better
>> way.
>> JJ Sinclair
>>
>> At 04:30 16 March 2005, Gordon Schubert wrote:
>>>Two gliderscoming in to the finish directly over the
>>>runway. One at about 100 ft and the other at 150 ft.
>>>The one at 150 ft is going about 30 knots faster than
>>>the lower and flies over it just as the lower glider
>>>is pulling up. Lower glider misses the one above by
>>>approx. 5-10 ft. This happened directly in front of
>>>me and probably 10 other people. It was mentioned by
>>>Charlie Spratt at the pilots meeting.
>>>GORDY
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

[Gary Boggs]

And did no one on the ground have a radio and see this developing?

Gary

"Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
...
> Were these two guys using the radio at all? Why weren't they aware of
> each other?
> I can't imagine anyone doing a finish without announcing, how did this
> happen?
>
>
> "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Finish gates without radio procedures are indeed a quite dumb thing to
>> do. I'd call that Darwin...
>>
>> --
>> Bert Willing
>>
>> ASW20 "TW"
>>
>>
>> "John Sinclair" > a écrit dans le
>> message de news: ...
>>> This is a classic example of two gliders flying in
>>> the other pilots 'blind spot'. Lower pilot can't see
>>> above and behind, higher pilot can't see below and
>>> in front, because the nose of his ship blocks his view
>>> in this area. Both ships heades for the same point
>>> in space. Some have reffered to this as a 'scheduled
>>> mid-air', same point (GPS coordinates of gate), same
>>> altitude (50 feet), the only remaining variable is
>>> the timing of the event. Looks like the it was almost
>>> perfect on this one. Come on guys, there is a better
>>> way.
>>> JJ Sinclair
>>>
>>> At 04:30 16 March 2005, Gordon Schubert wrote:
>>>>Two gliderscoming in to the finish directly over the
>>>>runway. One at about 100 ft and the other at 150 ft.
>>>>The one at 150 ft is going about 30 knots faster than
>>>>the lower and flies over it just as the lower glider
>>>>is pulling up. Lower glider misses the one above by
>>>>approx. 5-10 ft. This happened directly in front of
>>>>me and probably 10 other people. It was mentioned by
>>>>Charlie Spratt at the pilots meeting.
>>>>GORDY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[HL Falbaum]

Yes, how did this happen? I have flown in several Seniors, and radio
discipline is usually quite good!
Just guessing (I know, bad!), one of them had to fail to switch from "crew"
123.5 to "gate" 123.3--So each announces and does not hear the other because
they are on different frequencies.
The overtake speed differential is small enough to keep them in the blind
spot a long time.

--
Hartley Falbaum
ASW27B "KF" USA


"Gary Boggs" > wrote in message
...
> Were these two guys using the radio at all? Why weren't they aware of
> each other?
> I can't imagine anyone doing a finish without announcing, how did this
> happen?
>
>
> "Bert Willing" > wrote in
> message ...
>> Finish gates without radio procedures are indeed a quite dumb thing to
>> do. I'd call that Darwin...
>>
>> --
>> Bert Willing
>>
>> ASW20 "TW"
>>
>>
>> "John Sinclair" > a écrit dans le
>> message de news: ...
>>> This is a classic example of two gliders flying in
>>> the other pilots 'blind spot'. Lower pilot can't see
>>> above and behind, higher pilot can't see below and
>>> in front, because the nose of his ship blocks his view
>>> in this area. Both ships heades for the same point
>>> in space. Some have reffered to this as a 'scheduled
>>> mid-air', same point (GPS coordinates of gate), same
>>> altitude (50 feet), the only remaining variable is
>>> the timing of the event. Looks like the it was almost
>>> perfect on this one. Come on guys, there is a better
>>> way.
>>> JJ Sinclair
>>>
>>> At 04:30 16 March 2005, Gordon Schubert wrote:
>>>>Two gliderscoming in to the finish directly over the
>>>>runway. One at about 100 ft and the other at 150 ft.
>>>>The one at 150 ft is going about 30 knots faster than
>>>>the lower and flies over it just as the lower glider
>>>>is pulling up. Lower glider misses the one above by
>>>>approx. 5-10 ft. This happened directly in front of
>>>>me and probably 10 other people. It was mentioned by
>>>>Charlie Spratt at the pilots meeting.
>>>>GORDY
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

[John Sinclair]

Casey, Casey, Casey,

Does the word 'denial' mean anything to you? I make
it 5 accidents in the Neanderthal gate, but they were
all caused by 'poor judgement' and or 'poor pilotage',
right?

Tell me something, how does this near mid-air at the
Seniors, differ from the ASK-21 that pulled up into
the Cub at Turf, resulting in the tragic loss of 4
people? They were both flying in each others blind
spot. One pulled up (starting a loop) and hit the Piper
Cub on down-wind. Doesn't count, right? Didn't happen
in a contest.

I'll say it again, there is a better way. Why don't
we drop, once and for all, this Neanderthal Gate and
go with the proven finish cylinder to score all our
races?

JJ Sinclair (Wuss)

>Re the specific incident you report.....once again
>it was poor judgement and
>pilotage on the overtaking pilots part. If the pilot
>that was being
>overtaken called in at 4 miles prior to the other then
>it is the following
>gliders responsiblity to locate him and if he does
>not see him then it is
>his responsibility to report that. This is no different
>than what occurs at
>nearly every controlled airport in the nation hourly.
> A gate at least
>allows meaningful position fixes vs. the cylinder finish.
>
>Casey Lenox
>KC
>Phoenix
>
>
>

[Kilo Charlie]

Take a look at the responses here....most are wanting to know why the radio
wasn't used to avoid this conflict. I'll repeat the idea that the radio is
only useful when you have some way of identifying your position relative to
other pilots. That is easy with the finish gate. Explain to me how you
could tell another pilot where you are if you just heard them call 4 miles
and you are at the same distance but do not see them with a cylinder finish.
Landmarks don't help...you're too high. Distance from the edge or center
doesn't help...you could be on a collision course anywhere along the way
since you are most likely on differing tangents but both headed toward the
runway.

Your facts are incorrect re the Turf midair. For the record the glider was
in an established acro box on the downside of a loop and the Cub was on a
downwind through the middle of the box which he knew was hot during a lot of
the day. Your using this to support your point is lost on me since I would
argue the opposite or that it at very least that it has nothing to do with
this thread. An analogous situation with the contest gate finish would be
that they would both have been entering downwind, called it on the radio and
if getting a no joy would have kept talking until they did.

Let's try this.....the parcel of cubic atmosphere that a glider might be in
when calling a finish with the cylinder is many fold greater than that with
the gate. That allows many more possibilities for unseen conflicts and
fewer possibilities for being able to identify where you are in relationship
to the other folks. OK you math guys.....help me out with some
numbers....you out there 9B?!

You should have been a politician with your Neanderthal comments and use of
hyperbole JJ. When your argument has no basis in fact that is all that's
left I suppose. Re the denial....what is it that you don't get about some
of those stall spins being unrelated to contests or are you now going to
attribute all stall spin accidents to gate finishes?

This is a good and useful discussion but please let's keep it to the facts
and not get so emotional about it.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Andy Blackburn]

At 02:30 17 March 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:
> OK you math guys.....help me out with some
>numbers....you out there 9B?!
>

Go get 'em Casey - grrrr...

...I'm covering the Neanderthal thread. Check it out,
I just folded the 15-minute rule into the discussion
- it'll be hypergolic!

(BTW, I'm inclined to agree with you - for years I
knew where to look when someone called 'four miles'
or got a 'mark' on finishing - now I still look but
odd's are I won't see anyone - particularly on MATs,
so on I go in the blind.

I remember Marine ground attack pilots telling me about
dropping bombs on targets at the same time as incoming
artillery. They called it 'big sky, little bullet'
- this seems like the same doctrine. If the cylinder
is big enough the odds are reduced than any two random
gliders will run into each other, but the price you
pay is making it harder to see and avoid each other
if you do end up on converging courses. Hard to prove
the math of it - too many possible combinations.)

9B

[[email protected]]

Emotion tends to remove the analytical, I have found it is very
difficult to convince anyone of your position when their's has become
established. For me, the "safety" equation more than balances the
"fun" equation. When you are finishing at 50 feet and 150 mph and
something goes wrong there really aren't too many options. Rember
"Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it probably won't work and it annoys
the pig."

[Bruce]

wrote:
> Emotion tends to remove the analytical, I have found it is very
> difficult to convince anyone of your position when their's has become
> established. For me, the "safety" equation more than balances the
> "fun" equation. When you are finishing at 50 feet and 150 mph and
> something goes wrong there really aren't too many options. Rember
> "Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it probably won't work and it annoys
> the pig."
>
OK Devil's advocate stuff...

At least on a 50' finish you can be reasonably sure there is no glider below you
in your blind spot. When you are that low the only thing beneath you is ground,
and presumably you have good situational awareness relating to where it is going
;-)Effectively you remove one degre of freedom from your conflicting traffic
equation. Also - everyone knows what your intentions are, the moment you cross
the line. Not least important is the psychological effect of - "any stupidity
now is going to be in clear view" - one assumes this tends to focus the mind a
little.

With a higher / further finish you open up the options a little.

[Bert Willing]

Actually, 50 ft is not particularily high... :-)

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Bruce" > a écrit dans le message de news:
...
> wrote:
>> Emotion tends to remove the analytical, I have found it is very
>> difficult to convince anyone of your position when their's has become
>> established. For me, the "safety" equation more than balances the
>> "fun" equation. When you are finishing at 50 feet and 150 mph and
>> something goes wrong there really aren't too many options. Rember
>> "Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it probably won't work and it annoys
>> the pig."
>>
> OK Devil's advocate stuff...
>
> At least on a 50' finish you can be reasonably sure there is no glider
> below you in your blind spot. When you are that low the only thing beneath
> you is ground, and presumably you have good situational awareness relating
> to where it is going ;-)Effectively you remove one degre of freedom from
> your conflicting traffic equation. Also - everyone knows what your
> intentions are, the moment you cross the line. Not least important is the
> psychological effect of - "any stupidity now is going to be in clear
> view" - one assumes this tends to focus the mind a little.
>
> With a higher / further finish you open up the options a little.

[John Sinclair]

Hi Gary,
I have no illusions about changing the mind-set of
the Neanderthals. I'm continuing this discussion in
the hope that contest managers and CD's will see the
potential dangers in using the finish gate. Who knows,
maybe a Director or two might just be listening, or
even the rules committee?
JJ

At 05:30 17 March 2005, wrote:
>Emotion tends to remove the analytical, I have found
>it is very
>difficult to convince anyone of your position when
>their's has become
>established. For me, the 'safety' equation more than
>balances the
>'fun' equation. When you are finishing at 50 feet
>and 150 mph and
>something goes wrong there really aren't too many options.
> Rember
>'Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it probably won't
>work and it annoys
>the pig.'
>
>

[Stewart Kissel]

Whille we r on the subject of the Senior's Contest....has
anyone analyzed the average age for these guys vs a
'regular' contest...

Is there in fact any significant average age difference
between them?




At 20:00 17 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>Hi Gary,
>I have no illusions about changing the mind-set of
>the Neanderthals. I'm continuing this discussion in
>the hope that contest managers and CD's will see the
>potential dangers in using the finish gate. Who knows,
>maybe a Director or two might just be listening, or
>even the rules committee?
>JJ
>
>At 05:30 17 March 2005, wrote:
>>Emotion tends to remove the analytical, I have found
>>it is very
>>difficult to convince anyone of your position when
>>their's has become
>>established. For me, the 'safety' equation more than
>>balances the
>>'fun' equation. When you are finishing at 50 feet
>>and 150 mph and
>>something goes wrong there really aren't too many options.
>> Rember
>>'Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it probably won't
>>work and it annoys
>>the pig.'
>>
>>
>
>
>
>

[Raphael Warshaw]

Any time you divide a group at some breakpoint (like 55 years of age), the
means will be different; if there are more than a few on each side, they
are likely to be statistically significantly different from each other as
well.

For the Choice Reaction-time "contest" at the convention, the contestants
were fairly evenly divided with 101 competitors in the <55 class and 88 in
the seniors. The mean ages were 66.26 vs. 42.59 (p>0.000). If you drop the
"juniors" (age<26), you raise the mean for the <55 class to 45.44.

The usual disclaimers, of course, apply.

Ray Warshaw
1LK


"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...
> Whille we r on the subject of the Senior's Contest....has
> anyone analyzed the average age for these guys vs a
> 'regular' contest...
>
> Is there in fact any significant average age difference
> between them?
>
>
>
>
> At 20:00 17 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>>Hi Gary,
>>I have no illusions about changing the mind-set of
>>the Neanderthals. I'm continuing this discussion in
>>the hope that contest managers and CD's will see the
>>potential dangers in using the finish gate. Who knows,
>>maybe a Director or two might just be listening, or
>>even the rules committee?
>>JJ
>>
>>At 05:30 17 March 2005, wrote:
>>>Emotion tends to remove the analytical, I have found
>>>it is very
>>>difficult to convince anyone of your position when
>>>their's has become
>>>established. For me, the 'safety' equation more than
>>>balances the
>>>'fun' equation. When you are finishing at 50 feet
>>>and 150 mph and
>>>something goes wrong there really aren't too many options.
>>> Rember
>>>'Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it probably won't
>>>work and it annoys
>>>the pig.'
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

I don't understand the talk about "conflicts" in the finish cylinder.
Everybody is inbound on a radial, heading for the center of the
cylinder, when you reach 1 mile, your clock stops. Where is the
conflict? Lots of sky out there, 5280 X 3.1416 X 2 = 33,175 feet around
it, each radial = 91 feet at 1 mile. There is no "head-on" conflict,
because the guy coming at you is on the other side of the cylinder
which is 2 miles away. And we don't have my favorite little jewel,
"hooking the gate".
Let me take a crack at the numbers; The finish line is 1000 meters
(3281 feet), but we don't use all of it because we aim for the closest
corner, when straight on, we center punch it at the GPS coordinates. So
lets divide the finish line by 8 to get 410 feet which I will call the
target area (area where a conflict might happen).
The finish cylinder circumference is 33,175, but lets take the worst
case where everybody is coming from the same turn point and divide it
by the same factor of 8 to give us the distance in the 45 degree hunk
of pie we're all headed for. That's 4147feet and almost exactly 10
times more distance in the cylinder target area as in the finish line
target area. I'm going to say there is 10 times more chance of a
conflict at the finish line than there is at the finish cylinder
JJ

[Stewart Kissel]

Err, okay...so does that mean they are actually an
older group at the seniors? I don't see to many spring-chickens
in the 15-Standard-Open Classes.



At 00:00 18 March 2005, Raphael Warshaw wrote:
>Any time you divide a group at some breakpoint (like
>55 years of age), the
>means will be different; if there are more than a
>few on each side, they
>are likely to be statistically significantly different
>from each other as
>well.
>
>For the Choice Reaction-time 'contest' at the convention,
>the contestants
>were fairly evenly divided with 101 competitors in
>the 0.000). If you drop the
>'juniors' (age wrote in
>message ...
>> Whille we r on the subject of the Senior's Contest....has
>> anyone analyzed the average age for these guys vs
>>a
>> 'regular' contest...
>>
>> Is there in fact any significant average age difference
>> between them?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> At 20:00 17 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>>>Hi Gary,
>>>I have no illusions about changing the mind-set of
>>>the Neanderthals. I'm continuing this discussion in
>>>the hope that contest managers and CD's will see the
>>>potential dangers in using the finish gate. Who knows,
>>>maybe a Director or two might just be listening, or
>>>even the rules committee?
>>>JJ
>>>
>>>At 05:30 17 March 2005, wrote:
>>>>Emotion tends to remove the analytical, I have found
>>>>it is very
>>>>difficult to convince anyone of your position when
>>>>their's has become
>>>>established. For me, the 'safety' equation more than
>>>>balances the
>>>>'fun' equation. When you are finishing at 50 feet
>>>>and 150 mph and
>>>>something goes wrong there really aren't too many options.
>>>> Rember
>>>>'Don't try to teach a pig to sing, it probably won't
>>>>work and it annoys
>>>>the pig.'
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

Disagree JJ. The exact same scenario is possible - even more likely in
the finish cylinder. One of the more recent weaknesses of the finish
line was introduced by GPS. The rules now state that the finish is
based on your trace and not whether or not you turned inside a physical
feature. To my mind, this is proof positive that our rules makers
aren't thinking their decisions through carefully, but are acting based
on technological possibility and ground crew convenience. I, for one,
don't check the panel for anything but airspeed once I've committed to
a gate finish. I can judge my altitude well enough, and I'm much more
interested in traffic than which way the nav arrow is pointing. Not the
case in the cylinder. I've flown through the latter enough now to know
I'm not comfortable with the amount of panel time I need to plan
execute my finish.

BTW, here's one of the hazards of flying empty. You are much more
visible with your comet tail in the finish gate/cylinder.

Gosh, as all the legends get older, this sport sure is getting prissy.
I'm all for safe... but sterile? ;-)

[[email protected]]

Use a 30 degree course variance from the midpoint of the final leg (15
degrees each side of nominal) of an AST for 10 sailplanes 20 miles out
approaching a 1 sm radius cyclinder. There will be an arc on the face
of the cylinders described by their course to the midpoint of the
cylinder. If they all arrive at the same time and the same altitude,
what is their separation? Sorry, I've got time to pose the question,
but not enough to answer it. And Andy makes a good point, when they
call 4 miles... 4 miles from what?

Cheers,

OC

[Stewart Kissel]

>
>Gosh, as all the legends get older, this sport sure
>is getting prissy.
>I'm all for safe... but sterile? ;-)


I get tired of the low-finish proponents talking about
being braver, more skilled or less prissy.

If these things are so important to u....why not finish
every flight this way? I still manage to go to the
airport without being 'worried or scared' and fly without
doing the damn things.

U guys are coming dangerously close to appearing to
push a macho-man agenda to justify this manuever :)

[[email protected]]

Wow, JJ. You're proving a point that scares me. Pilots genuinely don't
understand how finishes work. You are addressing one scenario only...
finishers from all points on the compass. See my previous post and
retry the math based on the numbers I offered.

Ah well. I know what I prefer. Someone will change the rules, and we'll
deal with them. Let's just hope we don't discover a new set of
unpleasant variables the first time we collect a furball at the finish
cyclinder on a blue AST day.

[Kilo Charlie]

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message ...

>
> If these things are so important to u....why not finish
> every flight this way?

Maybe it will scare you just thinking about it but we DO finish every flight
this way in Arizona! In fact on a day that none of us could get over tow
release height I saw one of my esteemed colleagues do a pass down the runway
at about 50 feet. He was having fun and we all enjoyed watching it since it
was pretty much the highlight of the day. It is nothing less than a
precision manuever and if it bothers you and you don't have the skills to
perform it then by no means are any of us pushing you to do it but please do
not criticize those of us that enjoy it and do it well.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[[email protected]]

Gary,

Some of the emotion centers on being forced to accept the lowest common
denominator. I'm not rationalizing the relative safety of the finish
gate so much as I'm questioning the false security of the cylinder.

Never trust simple solutions. They are usually supported by complex
excuses.

[Stewart Kissel]

U and I are not going to agree on this...just give
the 'skills to do this' nonsense a rest.

What we choose to do is not linked to skills....

U wanna do this every flight...be my guest :)




At 02:30 18 March 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>message ...
>
>>
>> If these things are so important to u....why not finish
>> every flight this way?
>
>Maybe it will scare you just thinking about it but
>we DO finish every flight
>this way in Arizona! In fact on a day that none of
>us could get over tow
>release height I saw one of my esteemed colleagues
>do a pass down the runway
>at about 50 feet. He was having fun and we all enjoyed
>watching it since it
>was pretty much the highlight of the day. It is nothing
>less than a
>precision manuever and if it bothers you and you don't
>have the skills to
>perform it then by no means are any of us pushing you
>to do it but please do
>not criticize those of us that enjoy it and do it well.
>
>Casey Lenox
>KC
>Phoenix
>
>
>

[Andy Blackburn]

At 00:30 18 March 2005, wrote:
>I don't understand the talk about 'conflicts' in the
>finish cylinder.
>Everybody is inbound on a radial, heading for the center
>of the
>cylinder, when you reach 1 mile, your clock stops.
>Where is the
>conflict? Lots of sky out there, 5280 X 3.1416 X 2
>= 33,175 feet around
>it, each radial = 91 feet at 1 mile. There is no 'head-on'
>conflict,
>because the guy coming at you is on the other side
>of the cylinder
>which is 2 miles away. And we don't have my favorite
>little jewel,
>'hooking the gate'.
>Let me take a crack at the numbers; The finish line
>is 1000 meters
>(3281 feet), but we don't use all of it because we
>aim for the closest
>corner, when straight on, we center punch it at the
>GPS coordinates. So
>lets divide the finish line by 8 to get 410 feet which
>I will call the
>target area (area where a conflict might happen).
>The finish cylinder circumference is 33,175, but lets
>take the worst
>case where everybody is coming from the same turn point
>and divide it
>by the same factor of 8 to give us the distance in
>the 45 degree hunk
>of pie we're all headed for. That's 4147feet and almost
>exactly 10
>times more distance in the cylinder target area as
>in the finish line
>target area. I'm going to say there is 10 times more
>chance of a
>conflict at the finish line than there is at the finish
>cylinder
>JJ
>
>

If you look at actual contest finishes from the IGC
files you'll find 45 degrees is way too big, but this
is beside the point. The conflicts I have personally
experienced have to do with what people do in the interval
between the edge of the cylinder and the airport. With
a gate the sequencing of finishers is established well
out on final glide since most are on parallel paths
and the transition from finish to landing is pretty
orderly because you have a good sense where everyone
is and what they are doing. With the cylinder I have
found that pilots mill about at various speeds and
altitudes within the cylinder, heading generally towards
the pattern IP, but not directly and not on parallel
paths. You have no idea where anyone is or what the
landing sequence is. Is it a lot worse? No. It is better
or safer? Not obvious in my experience.

9B

[Andy Blackburn]

At 02:30 18 March 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
>'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
>message ...
>
>>
>> If these things are so important to u....why not finish
>> every flight this way?
>
>Maybe it will scare you just thinking about it but
>we DO finish every flight
>this way in Arizona!

Yup, consistent with local conditions and safety considerations
- like anything you do in flying.

Maybe we should have contest tasks that are restricted
to gliding distance from the home field and only allow
one competitor on the course at a time - that would
help safety a lot.

:-)

9B

[Kilo Charlie]

"Stewart Kissel" > wrote in
message .
>
> What we choose to do is not linked to skills....


Maybe this explains some things..... ;-)

KC

[Andy Blackburn]

At 02:00 18 March 2005, Stewart Kissel wrote:
>I get tired of the low-finish proponents talking about
>being braver, more skilled or less prissy.
>
>If these things are so important to u....why not finish
>every flight this way? I still manage to go to the
>airport without being 'worried or scared' and fly without
>doing the damn things.
>
>U guys are coming dangerously close to appearing to
>push a macho-man agenda to justify this manuever :)


I agree - since this is about personal preference and
not safety, we should not ascribe wuss status to those
who prefer not fly a particular way, or macho status
to those who do. By the same token, it's equally unjust
to call something unsafe simply because it's not within
a particular individual's personal preference.

Everyone should fly within their personal comfort zone
- but we shouldn't legislate to the most restrictive
preference. If you don't like finishing below 1, 2
or 3,000', don't, but let's not write the rules that
way - otherwise someone will want us to ban cross-country
flying altogether.

9B

[[email protected]]

I disagree, Andy. Using your rational we could safely raise the nations
highway speed to 100. If you feel confident and know your abilities, go
ahead and drive 100. If not, don't do that. Problem is, not all us
incompetent folks know we're incompetent. Rules must be written to
protect the new / incompetent pilot. I know of 5 accidents associated
with the finish line and we just had a near-miss at the line.......10
or 15 feet..............Wow.
Think about that folks, one more liability suit and we might not be
able to find an insurance company to cover what we're doing. That would
solve this finish gate controversy, once and for all. No more contests!

Another troubling issue with me is our flirting with the FAR's. I can't
remember a site where I wasn't below 500 feet over people, places or
things as I made my dive through the finish line. Even at Hobbs, which
has got to be the most wide open place in the world, I was close to the
limit as I crossed the highway, finishing from the east, then I flew
over the golf course and over the tie-downs, before hitting the line at
50 feet. The feds don't enforce all the rules, they can't, but just
have an accident and watch the rule book come out.

Anybody want to talk about our pull-up being called acrobatic? "A
maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircrafts
attitude..................not neccesary for normal flight" Not to be
initiated below 1500 feet, how about 50 feet? and with spectators "open
air assembly of persons".

There is a better way,
JJ Sinclair

[Andy Blackburn]

At 16:30 18 March 2005, wrote:
>Using your rational we could safely raise the nations
>highway speed to 100.

I'm sure you remember when the limits across sparsely
populated highway stretches in many western states
were posted 'reasonable and proper' - no more. The
only demonstrably 100% safe highway speed is one where
all passengers can survive a head-on collision or one
into a bridge abutment. I'd put that at around 15 mph.
What speed would you call safe enough? I for one
was happy when the limit on Interstate highways went
from 55 to 75 mph - sounds like maybe you thought it
was a bad idea.

>I know of 5 accidents associated
>with the finish line and we just had a near-miss at
>the line.......10
>or 15 feet..............Wow.

I think the linkage between using a gate and these
accidents has been questioned previously. Nevertheless,
we should try to learn from these and other piloting
mistakes as it is serious business. We also should
try to avoid overreacting so we don't sap all the fun
out of racing over time.

> 'A maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircrafts
>attitude..................not neccesary for normal
>flight' Not to be
>initiated below 1500 feet

I'm thinking this means that thermalling below 1500'
is also against the FARs because the entry is an abrupt
change in attitude and circling involves 'aerobatic'
bank angles.

9B

[[email protected]]

Stewart,

I think you've lit on something. The difference between glider pilots
and racers. Yes, there is a difference. If I am not improving my skills
in some meaningful, measurable way, I lose interest in a sport very,
very quickly. It is ALL about the skills. I know Kilo Charlie well. I
know he gets this. So do many other pilots. It doesn't make us better
or worse. It simply means we operate under a different set of
priorities. Safety is one of them. But I think we're willing to put a
lot more effort into developing the skills necessary to be safe in more
varied and dynamic enivornments than many other pilots.

A decade ago, the sport lost one of chiefest skills: navigation. More
recently it has been peleton tactics. Some changes have been well
received: I didn't mind discarding the skills I'd learned in managing
the high speed start gate, by far the most dangerous environment we
faced. But recent attempts to use "safety" as a rubric for
ill-considered changes in rules and practices have increasingly "dumbed
down" the sport without really improving its safety. Seems safer. But
seems ain't is.

OC

[Orion Kingman]

OK, I've been lurking on this topic long enough.

I regullarly make low-pass finnish at the end of the majority of my
soaring flights, and know when and where to expect other aircraft in
the traffic pattern. I plan and adjust my actions acrodingly. In
addition to my experience flying gliders I also have over 600 hours of
instruction given in the Southern California airspace (flying powered
aircraft), along with over 500 hours of flying a Beech Bonanza
corporatly into the majority of class Bravo airports through out the
country. With all of my experiences the closest that I have come to
being in a mid-air is not finnishing at the gliderport, but flying VFR
traffic patterns with students at untowered fields. This is by far the
closest resemblience to a finish cylinder that the majority of pilots
encounter during their flying carrier. Even though there are
recomended procedures to enter a VFR pattern pilots will choose to
otherwise depending on their situation. Conversely, flying an ILS
approach most closely resembles a finish gate senario: all the traffic
is flying the same direction, for the same destination (how i miss
AST's). When a pilot reports the final approach fix on an ILS (or for
any instrument appraoch) you know exactly where he is at, the same
holds true for finnish gate procedures with a common final turnpoint,
four miles is going to be four miles! My concern has never been that I
am going to climb into someone (or that some one is going to climb into
me), but that we are going to converge on each other. The only mid-air
collision that I have personal knowledge of, that occured in the
traffic pattern, happend when two of my colleuges were turning from
cross-wind to down-wind, in a Duchess, when a Mooney struck them after
making an improper postion report, and this was at a towered field!
(See http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020927X05234&key=2 NTSB
Report:LAX02FA288B)

SO.... I contend that the finish cylinder is not going to provide
safety at a contest. I conceed that there are locations where a finish
cylinder does provide a better finishing enviroment, considering other
airport operations. Ideally by providing an established finishing
routine (I like the ideas of mandatory final turns) we as pilots can
provide better position reports facilitating our communications with
each other over the radio - the best tool that we have to avoid
mid-airs and make the finish area (gate or otherwise) a safer
environment.


Orion Kingman
DV8
Phoenix

[[email protected]]

It turns out the numbers are easier than I thought. 30-degree arc at
one mile is about 2700 feet of arc on the face of the cylinder. That's
almost 700 feet narrower than the finish gate. So the fleet is coming
in 15 degrees either side of the nominal courseline at speeds between
60 knots and 140 knots - separation of traffic not intended nor
required. Eyes on the panel. No regulation of traffic approaching,
piercing, or pulling up in the cylinder. I'm not quite getting how this
is safer, other than the fact that we're 450 feet higher (which is
still not high enough to bail out) but plenty high enough to lead to
all sorts of interesting pattern decisions.

Placebo safety. I feel safer, therefore I am safe. Doh! The notion that
this is safer is a bawd. Neaderthals, despite their thick brows and
tendency to druel (with sinful pride), at least know how to measure and
reduce risk. The Wusses though seem content to soar in ignorant bliss.
I treat the cylinder with as much or more respect as I do the finish
line. Problem is, I'm not quite sure what to do after I enter since I
have absolutely no clue what anyone else will be doing. LCD. If
everyone is ignorant, it's a no fault proposition, right?

Tell you what. For the sake of ongoing discussion, let's just say the
finish line is too dangerous for the majority of soaring pilots and
should be abolished. Let's also assume the assumption that a cylinder
finish is safe, as it is currently construed, is little more than an
exercise in optimism, but without foundation. So, how do we finish
safely, so that the majority of pilots needn't get too close to the
ground, fly too fast, nor risk impaling themselves on a competing brand
of glider?

[Bill Daniels]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> It turns out the numbers are easier than I thought. 30-degree arc at
> one mile is about 2700 feet of arc on the face of the cylinder. That's
> almost 700 feet narrower than the finish gate. So the fleet is coming
> in 15 degrees either side of the nominal courseline at speeds between
> 60 knots and 140 knots - separation of traffic not intended nor
> required. Eyes on the panel. No regulation of traffic approaching,
> piercing, or pulling up in the cylinder. I'm not quite getting how this
> is safer, other than the fact that we're 450 feet higher (which is
> still not high enough to bail out) but plenty high enough to lead to
> all sorts of interesting pattern decisions.
>
> Placebo safety. I feel safer, therefore I am safe. Doh! The notion that
> this is safer is a bawd. Neaderthals, despite their thick brows and
> tendency to druel (with sinful pride), at least know how to measure and
> reduce risk. The Wusses though seem content to soar in ignorant bliss.
> I treat the cylinder with as much or more respect as I do the finish
> line. Problem is, I'm not quite sure what to do after I enter since I
> have absolutely no clue what anyone else will be doing. LCD. If
> everyone is ignorant, it's a no fault proposition, right?
>
> Tell you what. For the sake of ongoing discussion, let's just say the
> finish line is too dangerous for the majority of soaring pilots and
> should be abolished. Let's also assume the assumption that a cylinder
> finish is safe, as it is currently construed, is little more than an
> exercise in optimism, but without foundation. So, how do we finish
> safely, so that the majority of pilots needn't get too close to the
> ground, fly too fast, nor risk impaling themselves on a competing brand
> of glider?
>

Good post, fiveniner.

How about a rookie system? Any rookie competition pilot would have to prove
that he/she could fly a finish safely in pre-contest trails that might also
include tests of other required skills such as gaggle flying.

Performance would be judged by a panel of veteran competition pilots viewing
both the actual finish and the logger files. Successful completion of the
pre-contest trials would result in the issuance of a "competition license".

I feel pretty strongly that all true safety is pilot skill based. Safety by
regulation that attempts to compensate for lacking pilot skills is mostly
futile and adds unnecessary burdens on skillful pilots. Setting skill
standards for competition pilots would probably do more for safety than
anything else.

Bill Daniels

Bill Daniels

[toad]

wrote:
<snip>
> exercise in optimism, but without foundation. So, how do we finish
> safely, so that the majority of pilots needn't get too close to the
> ground, fly too fast, nor risk impaling themselves on a competing
brand
> of glider?

What would you think about a finish gate at 1000 ft agl, 1 mile abeam
the landing runway. Everybody hits that gate, turns toward the middle
of the runway, then enters downwind for the favored runway ?

Or just the exact same gate finish as the old days, at 1000 ft agl ?

Todd
3S

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

Gordon Schubert" > wrote in message
...
> Two gliderscoming in to the finish directly over the
> runway. One at about 100 ft and the other at 150 ft.
> The one at 150 ft is going about 30 knots faster than
> the lower and flies over it just as the lower glider
> is pulling up. Lower glider misses the one above by
> approx. 5-10 ft. This happened directly in front of
> me and probably 10 other people. It was mentioned by
> Charlie Spratt at the pilots meeting.
> GORDY
>

I believe that I am the pilot of the higher sailplane during the finish
incident described. If so the "facts" stated are not anywhere near
correct. Therefore much of the discussion in this thread do not apply to
the incident.

Duane

[John Sinclair]

Been tried, Todd. Problem is some saw the advantage
to be gained by coming in fast and low, then declaring
a rolling finish. That lead to the 5 minute penalty
for a rolling finish.
JJ


At 01:00 19 March 2005, Toad wrote:
>
wrote:
>
>> exercise in optimism, but without foundation. So,
>>how do we finish
>> safely, so that the majority of pilots needn't get
>>too close to the
>> ground, fly too fast, nor risk impaling themselves
>>on a competing
>brand
>> of glider?
>
>What would you think about a finish gate at 1000 ft
>agl, 1 mile abeam
>the landing runway. Everybody hits that gate, turns
>toward the middle
>of the runway, then enters downwind for the favored
>runway ?
>
>Or just the exact same gate finish as the old days,
>at 1000 ft agl ?
>
>Todd
>3S
>
>

[Shawn]

John Sinclair wrote:
> Been tried, Todd. Problem is some saw the advantage
> to be gained by coming in fast and low, then declaring
> a rolling finish. That lead to the 5 minute penalty
> for a rolling finish.
> JJ

Needs a bigger penalty. Wasn't there any thought to refining a high
finish, or did the finish gate advocates say "See, didn't work." (for
example)?

Shawn

> At 01:00 19 March 2005, Toad wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>exercise in optimism, but without foundation. So,
>>>how do we finish
>>>safely, so that the majority of pilots needn't get
>>>too close to the
>>>ground, fly too fast, nor risk impaling themselves
>>>on a competing
>>
>>brand
>>
>>>of glider?
>>
>>What would you think about a finish gate at 1000 ft
>>agl, 1 mile abeam
>>the landing runway. Everybody hits that gate, turns
>>toward the middle
>>of the runway, then enters downwind for the favored
>>runway ?
>>
>>Or just the exact same gate finish as the old days,
>>at 1000 ft agl ?
>>
>>Todd
>>3S

[John Sinclair]

>Needs a bigger penalty. Wasn't there any thought to
>refining a high
>finish,

You don't want to make the penalty for a rolling finish,
too high because the guy that really needs to make
one will foolishly try to make the finish line (avoiding
the penalty) and we all know how that may end up.
JJ

[John Sinclair]

At 00:00 19 March 2005, wrote:
>It turns out the numbers are easier than I thought.
>30-degree arc at
>one mile is about 2700 feet of arc on the face of the
>cylinder. That's
>almost 700 feet narrower than the finish gate. So the
>fleet is coming
>in 15 degrees either side of the nominal courseline
>at speeds between
>60 knots and 140 knots - separation of traffic not
>intended nor
>required. Eyes on the panel. No regulation of traffic
>approaching,
>piercing, or pulling up in the cylinder. I'm not quite
>getting how this
>is safer,

Oh, that's good! Let's use all of the finish line,
even though we know the pilots go for the nearest corner..........
.............And let's just use 1/12th of the finish
cylinder..................That aught make the numbers
look good.

other than the fact that we're 450 feet higher (which
is
>still not high enough to bail out) but plenty high
>enough to lead to
>all sorts of interesting pattern decisions.
>
>Placebo safety. I feel safer, therefore I am safe.
>Doh! The notion that
>this is safer is a bawd. Neaderthals, despite their
>thick brows and
>tendency to druel (with sinful pride), at least know
>how to measure and
>reduce risk. The Wusses though seem content to soar
>in ignorant bliss.
>I treat the cylinder with as much or more respect as
>I do the finish
>line. Problem is, I'm not quite sure what to do after
>I enter since I
>have absolutely no clue what anyone else will be doing.

I don't understand this kind of thinking; When I finish
at 500 feet and still a mile from the airport, I know
exactly what I'm going to do..........Head for the
nearest runway! I don't know how a pilot would be
able to do anything else. Who's 'milling around' in
this situation?

LCD. If
>everyone is ignorant, it's a no fault proposition,
>right?
>
>Tell you what. For the sake of ongoing discussion,
>let's just say the
>finish line is too dangerous for the majority of soaring
>pilots and
>should be abolished. Let's also assume the assumption
>that a cylinder
>finish is safe, as it is currently construed, is little
>more than an
>exercise in optimism,

I know of no accidents in the finish cylinder, but
I know of 5 in the finish gate. Them's the facts, not
an exercise in optimism.


but without foundation. So, how do we finish
>safely, so that the majority of pilots needn't get
>too close to the
>ground, fly too fast, nor risk impaling themselves
>on a competing brand
>of glider?
>
>

[[email protected]]

How might a cylinder have solved this, save no one would have witnessed
it?

[goneill]

The simple way of solving the the fast finishers and target fixation is
simple
Make the finish line/cylinder 20 kms or more from the airfield
The loggers will record finish height/speed ,then the pilots will
have to thermal on the way home.
Scoring came sort out any variations
This removes two problems, the target fixation and it aligns all traffic
in one direction.
Have a clearly marked fast lane and slow lane ,all pilots check in
with height and speed on entry to the fast lane and no passing without
prior contact between the aircraft.
One possible variation for scoring is have a fixed number of points
extra for the section from the finish line /cylinder to the home field and
deduct from that bonus for not keeping within the rules as set out.
Make the aborting of your run easy by making the slow lane closer in .
The important bit is have a massive penalty for non compliance from
losing all points from your best scoring day to being banned from
being launched for the rest of the contest.
This also gives a clear location to watch the finishing for spectators.
gary

"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> Been tried, Todd. Problem is some saw the advantage
> to be gained by coming in fast and low, then declaring
> a rolling finish. That lead to the 5 minute penalty
> for a rolling finish.
> JJ
>
>
> At 01:00 19 March 2005, Toad wrote:
>>
wrote:
>>
>>> exercise in optimism, but without foundation. So,
>>>how do we finish
>>> safely, so that the majority of pilots needn't get
>>>too close to the
>>> ground, fly too fast, nor risk impaling themselves
>>>on a competing
>>brand
>>> of glider?
>>
>>What would you think about a finish gate at 1000 ft
>>agl, 1 mile abeam
>>the landing runway. Everybody hits that gate, turns
>>toward the middle
>>of the runway, then enters downwind for the favored
>>runway ?
>>
>>Or just the exact same gate finish as the old days,
>>at 1000 ft agl ?
>>
>>Todd
>>3S
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Stewart Kissel]

The difference between glider pilots
>and racers. Yes, there is a difference. If I am not
>improving my skills
>in some meaningful, measurable way, I lose interest
>in a sport very,
>very quickly. It is ALL about the skills. doesn't
>make us better
>or worse. It simply means we operate under a different
>set of
>priorities. Safety is one of them.

SNIP-
Agreed


But I think we're willing to put a
>lot more effort into developing the skills necessary
>to be safe in more
>varied and dynamic enivornments than many other pilots.

SNIP-

Sorta agree...there are more avenues to explore then
just racing...but I see your point.

>
> But recent attempts to use 'safety' as a rubric for
>ill-considered changes in rules and practices have
>increasingly 'dumbed
>down' the sport without really improving its safety.
> Seems safer. But
>seems ain't is.

SNIP-
Yes...I have to deal with high altitude airports living
in the mts of Colorado...does constantly dealing with
nasty conditions around the airport make me 'more skilled'--not
really. I would prefer not to have to deal with these
conditions...but then I would not fly. And I don't
necesarily need those from other environments telling
me when these conditions are unsafe.

But on the flip side....I don't encourage flying in
marginal conditions as a test of 'skill or bravery
or whatever'.
>

[Andy Blackburn]

At 18:00 19 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:


>Oh, that's good! Let's use all of the finish line,
>even though we know the pilots go for the nearest corner..........
>>
>.............And let's just use 1/12th of the finish
>cylinder..................That aught make the numbers
>look good.

This part of the discussion has gotten a little silly.
On an AST or TAT there
is no way that the traffic is going to be finishing
from 360-degrees. Maybe
on a MAT, though I've not heard anyone suggest using
a gate for a MAT
with no final turnpoint. It's true that if the gate
is close to parallel to the
final courseline people will try to 'hook' it, but
I've not seen a CD set up a
task that way in some time. Yeah, I guess even if the
gate is 45-degrees to
the final course line pilots will converge on the close
end. You could make
a similar argument about the cylinder - there's always
a single point that is
closest to the final turnpoint. I've just never had
a problem with inadequate
space to finish under either scenario.

I don't know of any pilot who would deliberately fly
into someone to beat
them to the line, so the question has to be does one
form of finishing
inherently lead to finishers being unable to see and
avoid on another? I've
heard lots of arguments but thankfully no evidence
of actual collisions - a
couple of 'encounters' have been mentioned for both
gates and cylinders.
So, on this one we're definitely talking about problems
in the theoretical. I
personally have found more people finishing at different
speeds and
altitudes and directions under cylinders than gates
and in my mind this
creates mor opportunity for a glider to come at you
from an unexpected
direction. I've gotten surprised once myself in this
way in a cylinder, never
in a gate, but that's just me.

The second part of the argument has been about energy
management, this
is an entirely separate argument from finish line configuration.
It is true
that it's possible for someone to make a legal gate
finish with too little
energy and have a problem trying to make a pattern
afterwards. JJ has his
list of 5 accidents. We also have some examples of
pullups and spins trying
to make 500' at the edge of the cylinder. Some see
it clearly one way - I
look at it and see a more mixed picture. That's why
I say we leave it up to
the CD and contest organizers to decide what's most
suitable for the site,
the day and the contestants.

Over the 30 years I've been flying contests I have
found the sport
becoming progressvely more antiseptic, with less and
less of a visceral
sense of racing from starts and finishes to navigation,
tasks and scoring.
The start I don't miss much and I have found the new
tasks to offer new
challenges that in some ways cvompensate for the fact
that you spend
most of the flight flying by yourself. Waiting sometimes
overnight to find
out who won has been a downer. Overall most of us
have been willing to
make these tradeoffs. Maybe the finish gate is the
last tangible feature of
the sport that actually feels like racing - and just
maybe that's why some of
us want to hang on to it.

Otherwise we may as well all do OLC - or get copies
of Sailors of the Sky.

9B

[Andy Blackburn]

At 18:00 19 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:


>Oh, that's good! Let's use all of the finish line,
>even though we know the pilots go for the nearest corner..........
>>
>.............And let's just use 1/12th of the finish
>cylinder..................That aught make the numbers
>look good.

This part of the discussion has gotten a little silly.
On an AST or TAT there
is no way that the traffic is going to be finishing
from 360-degrees. Maybe
on a MAT, though I've not heard anyone suggest using
a gate for a MAT
with no final turnpoint. It's true that if the gate
is close to parallel to the
final courseline people will try to 'hook' it, but
I've not seen a CD set up a
task that way in some time. Yeah, I guess even if the
gate is 45-degrees to
the final course line pilots will converge on the close
end. You could make
a similar argument about the cylinder - there's always
a single point that is
closest to the final turnpoint. I've just never had
a problem with inadequate
space to finish under either scenario.

I don't know of any pilot who would deliberately fly
into someone to beat
them to the line, so the question has to be does one
form of finishing
inherently lead to finishers being unable to see and
avoid on another? I've
heard lots of arguments but thankfully no evidence
of actual collisions - a
couple of 'encounters' have been mentioned for both
gates and cylinders.
So, on this one we're definitely talking about problems
in the theoretical. I
personally have found more people finishing at different
speeds and
altitudes and directions under cylinders than gates
and in my mind this
creates mor opportunity for a glider to come at you
from an unexpected
direction. I've gotten surprised once myself in this
way in a cylinder, never
in a gate, but that's just me.

The second part of the argument has been about energy
management, this
is an entirely separate argument from finish line configuration.
It is true
that it's possible for someone to make a legal gate
finish with too little
energy and have a problem trying to make a pattern
afterwards. JJ has his
list of 5 accidents. We also have some examples of
pullups and spins trying
to make 500' at the edge of the cylinder. Some see
it clearly one way - I
look at it and see a more mixed picture. That's why
I say we leave it up to
the CD and contest organizers to decide what's most
suitable for the site,
the day and the contestants.

Over the 30 years I've been flying contests I have
found the sport
becoming progressvely more antiseptic, with less and
less of a visceral
sense of racing from starts and finishes to navigation,
tasks and scoring.
The start I don't miss the high-speed starts much and
I have found the new
tasks to offer new
challenges that in some ways cvompensate for the fact
that you spend
most of the flight flying by yourself. Waiting sometimes
overnight to find
out who won has been a downer. Overall most of us
have been willing to
make these tradeoffs. Maybe the finish gate is the
last tangible feature of
the sport that actually feels like racing - and just
maybe that's why some of
us want to hang on to it.

Otherwise we may as well all do OLC - or get copies
of Sailors of the Sky.

9B

[John Sinclair]

At 19:00 19 March 2005, wrote:
>How might a cylinder have solved this, save no one
>would have witnessed
>it?


I would suggest that his race would have ended back
at the finish cylinder and his only focus would have
been on just making a safe landing. He might not have
had the altitude to make the 500 foot, but then he
would have been keenly aware that he must land ASAP,
in order to get his clock stopped. Surely he would
have done the obvious thing and just land straight
ahead. He might have been suffering from dehydration,
but was still functioning well enough to find the airport
(pre GPS) and fly wings level to the finish line. If
he was dehydrated, his limited thought pattern was;
finish & pull-up. Remove the finish line and his limited
thought pattern would have been; finish & land.
JJ

[Kilo Charlie]

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
Maybe the finish gate is the
> last tangible feature of
> the sport that actually feels like racing - and just
> maybe that's why some of
> us want to hang on to it.
>
> Otherwise we may as well all do OLC - or get copies
> of Sailors of the Sky.
>
> 9B

My feelings exactly Andy. I am very close to calling the entire SSA racing
scene quits due to this nonsense. Everyone should read the excellent
account of the Reno nationals in Soaring. It puts it all in perspective.

I am sick and tired of others projecting their insecurities upon the rest of
us. If safety is of the upmost importance to them then they are in the
wrong sport. Try bowling or badmitten or just simply walking away from
glider racing. Life comes with no guarantees. Please leave those of us
that love the freedom and challenge of flying fast and low alone and quit
trying to change the sport to a sterile rubberized version of what it once
was. I truly and honestly think that this will very possibly be the end of
sailplane racing in the United States as we know it now. And should you
think that I am a lone voice, this is the same response I am hearing from
nearly all of our local racing pilots in Arizona. I am hopeful that you all
are only a vocal minority. I also hope that the rules committee is lurking.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Bob Korves]

All of this argument could be solved by going to a task described to me by
Ray Gimmey:

RETURN DISTANCE

Go anywhere you want and then turn toward home. Only mileage toward home
from the farthest point counts.

End of rules.
;-)
-Bob Korves

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
> At 18:00 19 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>
>
> >Oh, that's good! Let's use all of the finish line,
> >even though we know the pilots go for the nearest corner..........
> >>
> >.............And let's just use 1/12th of the finish
> >cylinder..................That aught make the numbers
> >look good.
>
> This part of the discussion has gotten a little silly.
> On an AST or TAT there
> is no way that the traffic is going to be finishing
> from 360-degrees. Maybe
> on a MAT, though I've not heard anyone suggest using
> a gate for a MAT
> with no final turnpoint. It's true that if the gate
> is close to parallel to the
> final courseline people will try to 'hook' it, but
> I've not seen a CD set up a
> task that way in some time. Yeah, I guess even if the
> gate is 45-degrees to
> the final course line pilots will converge on the close
> end. You could make
> a similar argument about the cylinder - there's always
> a single point that is
> closest to the final turnpoint. I've just never had
> a problem with inadequate
> space to finish under either scenario.
>
> I don't know of any pilot who would deliberately fly
> into someone to beat
> them to the line, so the question has to be does one
> form of finishing
> inherently lead to finishers being unable to see and
> avoid on another? I've
> heard lots of arguments but thankfully no evidence
> of actual collisions - a
> couple of 'encounters' have been mentioned for both
> gates and cylinders.
> So, on this one we're definitely talking about problems
> in the theoretical. I
> personally have found more people finishing at different
> speeds and
> altitudes and directions under cylinders than gates
> and in my mind this
> creates mor opportunity for a glider to come at you
> from an unexpected
> direction. I've gotten surprised once myself in this
> way in a cylinder, never
> in a gate, but that's just me.
>
> The second part of the argument has been about energy
> management, this
> is an entirely separate argument from finish line configuration.
> It is true
> that it's possible for someone to make a legal gate
> finish with too little
> energy and have a problem trying to make a pattern
> afterwards. JJ has his
> list of 5 accidents. We also have some examples of
> pullups and spins trying
> to make 500' at the edge of the cylinder. Some see
> it clearly one way - I
> look at it and see a more mixed picture. That's why
> I say we leave it up to
> the CD and contest organizers to decide what's most
> suitable for the site,
> the day and the contestants.
>
> Over the 30 years I've been flying contests I have
> found the sport
> becoming progressvely more antiseptic, with less and
> less of a visceral
> sense of racing from starts and finishes to navigation,
> tasks and scoring.
> The start I don't miss much and I have found the new
> tasks to offer new
> challenges that in some ways cvompensate for the fact
> that you spend
> most of the flight flying by yourself. Waiting sometimes
> overnight to find
> out who won has been a downer. Overall most of us
> have been willing to
> make these tradeoffs. Maybe the finish gate is the
> last tangible feature of
> the sport that actually feels like racing - and just
> maybe that's why some of
> us want to hang on to it.
>
> Otherwise we may as well all do OLC - or get copies
> of Sailors of the Sky.
>
> 9B
>
>
>
>

[John Sinclair]

Those of us who run contests have an obligation to
do so in the safest possible manner. To ignore known
safety considerations like the long list of finish
gate accidents is nothing short of ignoring a known
hazard. I see several pilots complaining about loosing
their right to have fun, but I don't see them volunteering
to run contests.
JJ Sinclair

At 02:30 20 March 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:
>
>'Andy Blackburn' wrote in message
...
> Maybe the finish gate is the
>> last tangible feature of
>> the sport that actually feels like racing - and just
>> maybe that's why some of
>> us want to hang on to it.
>>
>> Otherwise we may as well all do OLC - or get copies
>> of Sailors of the Sky.
>>
>> 9B
>
>My feelings exactly Andy. I am very close to calling
>the entire SSA racing
>scene quits due to this nonsense. Everyone should
>read the excellent
>account of the Reno nationals in Soaring. It puts
>it all in perspective.
>
>I am sick and tired of others projecting their insecurities
>upon the rest of
>us. If safety is of the upmost importance to them
>then they are in the
>wrong sport. Try bowling or badmitten or just simply
>walking away from
>glider racing. Life comes with no guarantees. Please
>leave those of us
>that love the freedom and challenge of flying fast
>and low alone and quit
>trying to change the sport to a sterile rubberized
>version of what it once
>was. I truly and honestly think that this will very
>possibly be the end of
>sailplane racing in the United States as we know it
>now. And should you
>think that I am a lone voice, this is the same response
>I am hearing from
>nearly all of our local racing pilots in Arizona.
>I am hopeful that you all
>are only a vocal minority. I also hope that the rules
>committee is lurking.
>
>Casey Lenox
>KC
>Phoenix
>
>
>

[Stewart Kissel]

I see several pilots complaining about loosing
>their right to have fun, but I don't see them volunteering
>to run contests.


U might be onto something here JJ. How about something
like the 'Turf Open'...with ribbon cutting at progressively
lower heights for extra points at the finish? :)

[[email protected]]

JJ,

It still doesn't solve the conflict at the line... ie high speed
traffic descending onto lower speed traffic ahead prior to and in the
finish gate. Converging taffic of this type will still happen, and
perhaps be even more frequent because of even greater disparities in
airspeed and reduced scan time (eyes on the prize, in this case, your
altimeter and moving map).

You make a good point that there is much, much more time for pattern
planning after the finish in a cylinder... but this is where my
argument of LCD becomes most acute. You are saying we should change the
rules to meet the safety needs of those unwilling or unable to perform
in a contest environment.

I'm happy to see such efforts made at a regional level. Contest are fun
and should be enjoyed by many. Just be sure that you're really
improving safety. It's the "enemy you know" argument. But at the
national level, I and others expect some level of competency and
preparation that makes the finsih gate a choice based on energy... lots
of it - you save a minute by burning off your safey altitude with a
flying finish and regulated entry to the pattern. Not enough energy -
you make a straight in approach and stop the glider asap to get your
finish time. Good contest planning by the CD and CM will produce a
natural separation of high and low speed traffic.

I'm gonna start a new thread on this subject with a picture. I don't
think most of us are visualizing the problems a cylinder poses. As
these get answered, you may win a convert. But so far, I'm only hearing
safety dogma without any transalation into how the cylinder will better
regulate traffic... or if there is an argument, it only says it's
bigger therefore it's safer. And while JJ may choose to fly to the far
side of the finish cylinder to decrease density (and I do appreciate
that!), I think the majority of us will be aiming for that short arc
(2,700 feet wide) at 500agl on the face of the cylinder between home
and the last declared turn point.

New thread and picture forthcoming.

OC

[Andy Blackburn]

At 13:30 20 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>Those of us who run contests have an obligation to
>do so in the safest possible manner.

I've agreed all along that selection of finish configuration
should be left to
the discretion of the organizers. I certainly wouldn't
argue for making a
gate mandatory. There are a hundred things I can list
that would make
contest flying safer. How about no 2 gliders in a thermal
closer than 500
feet apart, no flying outside 20:1 gliding distance
of an airport with a 75'-
wide paved strip, no ridge soaring, no flying above
12,500'? All of these
would 'solve' bigger safety issues than snuffing out
gate finishes - but they
would change the character of the sport - yup, the
'fun' of it.

>I see several pilots complaining about loosing
>their right to have fun, but I don't see them volunteering
>to run contests.

This feels a little off point and kind of personal,
but...

I've worked my share of contests over the years - and
I very much
appreciate those who put their energies into what is
often a thankless job -
so thank you. I would add that the ASA guys (represented
among the
several pilots you mention) run 20 contest days per
year - every year. It's
open to anyone willing to pay $80 plus the price of
the tows. They also
provide training to pilots new to racing via a mentor
program and a
beginners class. It takes a lot of dedication to keep
it going - and it's a
benefit to the sport. I wish more clubs did it.

9B

[Michael McNulty]

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...
<snip>

> appreciate those who put their energies into what is
> often a thankless job -
> so thank you. I would add that the ASA guys (represented
> among the
> several pilots you mention) run 20 contest days per
> year - every year. It's
> open to anyone willing to pay $80 plus the price of
> the tows. They also
> provide training to pilots new to racing via a mentor
> program and a
> beginners class. It takes a lot of dedication to keep
> it going - and it's a
> benefit to the sport. I wish more clubs did it.
>
> 9B

How about telling the group what kind of finish the ASA contest series used
last year, and why it was adopted?

[Andy Blackburn]

At 03:00 21 March 2005, Michael McNulty wrote:
>
>'Andy Blackburn' wrote in message
...
>
>
>> appreciate those who put their energies into what
>>is
>> often a thankless job -
>> so thank you. I would add that the ASA guys (represented
>> among the
>> several pilots you mention) run 20 contest days per
>> year - every year. It's
>> open to anyone willing to pay $80 plus the price of
>> the tows. They also
>> provide training to pilots new to racing via a mentor
>> program and a
>> beginners class. It takes a lot of dedication to
>>keep
>> it going - and it's a
>> benefit to the sport. I wish more clubs did it.
>>
>> 9B
>
>How about telling the group what kind of finish the
>ASA contest series
used
>last year, and why it was adopted?
>

Oddly enough I think ASA has used cylinders for some
time. They moved
the finish to a location remote from the airport to
avoid conflicts with the
aerobatic box for reasons that had more to do with
the location of the
downwind leg of the pattern than low finishes.

I'll leave it to the ASA guys to provide relevant details.

9B

[Kilo Charlie]

"Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
...

> Oddly enough I think ASA has used cylinders for some
> time. They moved
> the finish to a location remote from the airport to
> avoid conflicts with the
> aerobatic box for reasons that had more to do with
> the location of the
> downwind leg of the pattern than low finishes.
>
> I'll leave it to the ASA guys to provide relevant details.
>
> 9B

The Turf finish was a one mile cylinder centered on the IP for 23. It is
now centered back on the airport. The reason it was moved was at the
request of the Turf Soaring School management. Most of us found the
potential for problems greater with the displaced cylinder due to requiring
mental math at the end of a long day figuring out what altitude to finish at
in order to still comfortably make the pattern and runway depending upon
direction of finishing. Computers only calculate to the point of finish,
not beyond.

As long as I've been flying here (9 years) the Estrella finish has always
been a line perpendicular to the runways and centered on the airport.

KC

[snoop]

KC, your exactly the reason why I have no desire to race. Listen to
yourself, or better yet reread your own statements.

Start with:
> "sick and tired of others projecting their insecurities upon the
>rest of us. If >safety is of the upmost importance to them then they
are in >the wrong sport. Try >bowling or badmitten or just simply
walking away from
>glider racing. Life comes with no guarantees. Please leave those of
us
>that love the freedom and challenge of flying fast and low alone and
quit
>trying to change the sport to a sterile rubberized version of what it
once
>was. I truly and honestly think that this will very possibly be the
end of "

Then there's:

>"potential for problems greater with the displaced cylinder due to
requiring
> mental math at the end of a long day figuring out what altitude to
finish at
> in order to still comfortably make the pattern and runway depending
upon
> direction of finishing. Computers only calculate to the point of
finish,
> not beyond."

"Requiring mental math"? Methinks this is the root of the problem, and
KC has himself given it to us. To me the real champs in our sport, can
do the required math, and do it handsomely. What if the battery dies.
Oh, just crash, can't do math.

I agree with you on the "insecurities" issue. Mine is that when I go
flying whether it be in my glider or at work, that there might be some
idiot in the air who can't do the required math!

Contests are a waste of flying time, when you stand around waiting for
Charlie to see the first puffy before you go. Boring!

I like my buddy Well's idea of let's go at noon or before, if it's
sustainable. Why sit around looking at the sky.

I'd like to go the way of those gentlemen, out east and out west, who
fly great long flights, not just to go around a task and finish "low
and fast" for thirty seconds. Sounds like a bad love making technique,
low and fast, thirty seconds, whew! Anyway!

And lastly, KC, the majority of people want safety. If your so "close
to calling the entire SSA racing scene quits" maybe you should follow
your convictions, and quit.

JJ's right.








Kilo Charlie wrote:
"My feelings exactly Andy. I am very close to calling the entire SSA
racing
scene quits due to this nonsense. Everyone should read the excellent
account of the Reno nationals in Soaring. It puts it all in
perspective."

I am sick and tired of others projecting their insecurities upon the
rest of
us. If safety is of the upmost importance to them then they are in the

wrong sport. Try bowling or badmitten or just simply walking away from

glider racing. Life comes with no guarantees. Please leave those of
us
that love the freedom and challenge of flying fast and low alone and
quit
trying to change the sport to a sterile rubberized version of what it
once
was. I truly and honestly think that this will very possibly be the
end of "


"potential for problems greater with the displaced cylinder due to
requiring
> mental math at the end of a long day figuring out what altitude to
finish at
> in order to still comfortably make the pattern and runway depending
upon
> direction of finishing. Computers only calculate to the point of
finish,
> not beyond.
>
> As long as I've been flying here (9 years) the Estrella finish has
always
> been a line perpendicular to the runways and centered on the
airport."
>
> KC

[Gary Evans]

I believe that anyone wishing to do low fast finishes
should just go ahead provided that (1) The majority
competing and the contest director feels the same way
and (2) It is done where non-contest pilots cannot
be.
At this point neither appears to be the case so the
debate will likely continue until perhaps some occurance
makes the choice for us.




At 14:30 22 March 2005, Snoop wrote:
>KC, your exactly the reason why I have no desire to
>race. Listen to
>yourself, or better yet reread your own statements.
>
>Start with:
>> 'sick and tired of others projecting their insecurities
>>upon the
>>rest of us. If >safety is of the upmost importance
>>>to them then they
>are in >the wrong sport. Try >bowling or badmitten or
>>>just simply
>walking away from
>>glider racing. Life comes with no guarantees. Please
>>leave those of
>us
>>that love the freedom and challenge of flying fast
>>and low alone and
>quit
>>trying to change the sport to a sterile rubberized
>>version of what it
>once
>>was. I truly and honestly think that this will very
>>possibly be the
>end of '
>
>Then there's:
>
>>'potential for problems greater with the displaced
>>cylinder due to
>requiring
>> mental math at the end of a long day figuring out
>>what altitude to
>finish at
>> in order to still comfortably make the pattern and
>>runway depending
>upon
>> direction of finishing. Computers only calculate
>>to the point of
>finish,
>> not beyond.'
>
>'Requiring mental math'? Methinks this is the root
>of the problem, and
>KC has himself given it to us. To me the real champs
>in our sport, can
>do the required math, and do it handsomely. What if
>the battery dies.
>Oh, just crash, can't do math.
>
>I agree with you on the 'insecurities' issue. Mine
>is that when I go
>flying whether it be in my glider or at work, that
>there might be some
>idiot in the air who can't do the required math!
>
> Contests are a waste of flying time, when you stand
>around waiting for
>Charlie to see the first puffy before you go. Boring!
>
>I like my buddy Well's idea of let's go at noon or
>before, if it's
>sustainable. Why sit around looking at the sky.
>
> I'd like to go the way of those gentlemen, out east
>and out west, who
>fly great long flights, not just to go around a task
>and finish 'low
>and fast' for thirty seconds. Sounds like a bad love
>making technique,
>low and fast, thirty seconds, whew! Anyway!
>
>And lastly, KC, the majority of people want safety.
>If your so 'close
>to calling the entire SSA racing scene quits' maybe
>you should follow
>your convictions, and quit.
>
> JJ's right.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Kilo Charlie wrote:
>'My feelings exactly Andy. I am very close to calling
>the entire SSA
>racing
>scene quits due to this nonsense. Everyone should
>read the excellent
>account of the Reno nationals in Soaring. It puts
>it all in
>perspective.'
>
>I am sick and tired of others projecting their insecurities
>upon the
>rest of
>us. If safety is of the upmost importance to them
>then they are in the
>
>wrong sport. Try bowling or badmitten or just simply
>walking away from
>
>glider racing. Life comes with no guarantees. Please
>leave those of
>us
>that love the freedom and challenge of flying fast
>and low alone and
>quit
>trying to change the sport to a sterile rubberized
>version of what it
>once
>was. I truly and honestly think that this will very
>possibly be the
>end of '
>
>
>'potential for problems greater with the displaced
>cylinder due to
>requiring
>> mental math at the end of a long day figuring out
>>what altitude to
>finish at
>> in order to still comfortably make the pattern and
>>runway depending
>upon
>> direction of finishing. Computers only calculate
>>to the point of
>finish,
>> not beyond.
>>
>> As long as I've been flying here (9 years) the Estrella
>>finish has
>always
>> been a line perpendicular to the runways and centered
>>on the
>airport.'
>>
>> KC
>
>

[John Sinclair]

At 20:00 22 March 2005, Gary Evans wrote:
>I believe that anyone wishing to do low fast finishes
>should just go ahead provided that (1) The majority
>competing and the contest director feels the same way
>and (2) It is done where non-contest pilots cannot
>be.

I believe it was Winston Churchill That said; 'War
is too important to be left to the Generals'. Bending
that a bit, I would say,'Safe contests are too important
to be left to the contestants'
JJ

[Kilo Charlie]

Yup you're right Mickey.....you're smarter than I am and much wiser too.
Gosh...wish I could have seen that before. Would have saved me a lot of
time. So let's see.....what did you say should happen...I should quit
racing and JJ is always right? I'll give you the personal satisfaction to
say that you have finally driven me over the edge re following this
newsgroup. Bye.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Jack]

snoop wrote:

> "Requiring mental math"? Methinks this is the root of the problem, and
> KC has himself given it to us. To me the real champs in our sport, can
> do the required math, and do it handsomely. What if the battery dies.
> Oh, just crash, can't do math.
>
> I agree with you on the "insecurities" issue. Mine is that when I go
> flying whether it be in my glider or at work, that there might be some
> idiot in the air who can't do the required math!


This argument isn't about saving "the real champs in our sport." Your chief
proponent of the "Cylinder" has used the example of a fellow who was over
the finish line at 50 kts and 50 ft and still thought he ought to pull up to
some sort of pattern -- not exactly a championship move.

There is no way you are going to rule out that kind of misjudgment
occurring, whether in the Cylinder or in a low fast dash to the threshold --
it will just take different forms.

Everybody needs to be a bit more careful with their examples, a bit less
polemical, and provide a lot more hard data. So far all we have is strong
feelings on both sides and minds already set in cement.


Jack

[F.L. Whiteley]

Distance only, no speed points or time limits for that distance?

Interesting concept for the XC purist.

Frank Whiteley

"Bob Korves" <bkorves@winfirstDECIMALcom> wrote in message
...
> All of this argument could be solved by going to a task described to me by
> Ray Gimmey:
>
> RETURN DISTANCE
>
> Go anywhere you want and then turn toward home. Only mileage toward home
> from the farthest point counts.
>
> End of rules.
> ;-)
> -Bob Korves
>
> "Andy Blackburn" > wrote in message
> ...
> > At 18:00 19 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Oh, that's good! Let's use all of the finish line,
> > >even though we know the pilots go for the nearest corner..........
> > >>
> > >.............And let's just use 1/12th of the finish
> > >cylinder..................That aught make the numbers
> > >look good.
> >
> > This part of the discussion has gotten a little silly.
> > On an AST or TAT there
> > is no way that the traffic is going to be finishing
> > from 360-degrees. Maybe
> > on a MAT, though I've not heard anyone suggest using
> > a gate for a MAT
> > with no final turnpoint. It's true that if the gate
> > is close to parallel to the
> > final courseline people will try to 'hook' it, but
> > I've not seen a CD set up a
> > task that way in some time. Yeah, I guess even if the
> > gate is 45-degrees to
> > the final course line pilots will converge on the close
> > end. You could make
> > a similar argument about the cylinder - there's always
> > a single point that is
> > closest to the final turnpoint. I've just never had
> > a problem with inadequate
> > space to finish under either scenario.
> >
> > I don't know of any pilot who would deliberately fly
> > into someone to beat
> > them to the line, so the question has to be does one
> > form of finishing
> > inherently lead to finishers being unable to see and
> > avoid on another? I've
> > heard lots of arguments but thankfully no evidence
> > of actual collisions - a
> > couple of 'encounters' have been mentioned for both
> > gates and cylinders.
> > So, on this one we're definitely talking about problems
> > in the theoretical. I
> > personally have found more people finishing at different
> > speeds and
> > altitudes and directions under cylinders than gates
> > and in my mind this
> > creates mor opportunity for a glider to come at you
> > from an unexpected
> > direction. I've gotten surprised once myself in this
> > way in a cylinder, never
> > in a gate, but that's just me.
> >
> > The second part of the argument has been about energy
> > management, this
> > is an entirely separate argument from finish line configuration.
> > It is true
> > that it's possible for someone to make a legal gate
> > finish with too little
> > energy and have a problem trying to make a pattern
> > afterwards. JJ has his
> > list of 5 accidents. We also have some examples of
> > pullups and spins trying
> > to make 500' at the edge of the cylinder. Some see
> > it clearly one way - I
> > look at it and see a more mixed picture. That's why
> > I say we leave it up to
> > the CD and contest organizers to decide what's most
> > suitable for the site,
> > the day and the contestants.
> >
> > Over the 30 years I've been flying contests I have
> > found the sport
> > becoming progressvely more antiseptic, with less and
> > less of a visceral
> > sense of racing from starts and finishes to navigation,
> > tasks and scoring.
> > The start I don't miss much and I have found the new
> > tasks to offer new
> > challenges that in some ways cvompensate for the fact
> > that you spend
> > most of the flight flying by yourself. Waiting sometimes
> > overnight to find
> > out who won has been a downer. Overall most of us
> > have been willing to
> > make these tradeoffs. Maybe the finish gate is the
> > last tangible feature of
> > the sport that actually feels like racing - and just
> > maybe that's why some of
> > us want to hang on to it.
> >
> > Otherwise we may as well all do OLC - or get copies
> > of Sailors of the Sky.
> >
> > 9B
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

Bob Korves wrote:
> All of this argument could be solved by going to a task described to me by
> Ray Gimmey:
>
> RETURN DISTANCE
>
> Go anywhere you want and then turn toward home. Only mileage toward home
> from the farthest point counts.
>
> End of rules.

It'd be an interesting task, but I don't think that would be the end of
the rules or discussion! For instance:

-unlimited relights?
-relights allowed if you land off the airport?
-how is tow order decided?

It reminds of me of the "cat's cradle" distance task from 30+ years ago,
which lost popularity as pilots decided they didn't like flying seven or
eight hours a day, day after day. Some of them didn't think that was safe...

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA