View Full Version : Visulalizing the Finish Cylinder
OK, it's clear people aren't seeing cylinder finish dynamics very well,
except for JJ who believes the fastest distance between two points
involves sneaking up from behind. ...Smile...
The picture I've linked shows the problem. I still need someone to
explain why this is inherently safer. Note that I have no trouble
assessing my energy state and deciding early whether to take a rolling
or flying finish. I am also capable of integrating myself with other
high speed traffic transitioning to the traffic pattern. I consider all
pilots capable of learning these skills.
However, I, like everyone esle, am unable to see through those parts of
my glider that aren't made of plexiglass. My biggest concern in any
type of finish environment is to see and be seen. It seems to me that
the cylinder becomes much more dangerous by introducing an even greater
disparity in airspeed at the finish arc, increasing the likelihood that
I will fail to see or be seen by traffic. And the traffic I'm most
likely to hit will have the greatest difference in speed.
Here's a link so you can see what I'm looking at...
<ahref="http://users.adelphia.net/~cocallag/masatask/rasfinishcylinder.htm">http://users.adelphia.net/~cocallag/masatask/rasfinishcylinder.htm</a>
OC
Marc Ramsey
March 20th 05, 07:16 PM
wrote:
> The picture I've linked shows the problem. I still need someone to
> explain why this is inherently safer. Note that I have no trouble
> assessing my energy state and deciding early whether to take a rolling
> or flying finish. I am also capable of integrating myself with other
> high speed traffic transitioning to the traffic pattern. I consider all
> pilots capable of learning these skills.
This is a very nice visualization, but it doesn't directly address the
concerns expressed by several of us. To be specific, a) the failure of
some CDs to use a final control point to get everyone flowing towards
the gate in the proper direction, and b) the conflicts in the landing
pattern caused by the range of finish energies, in particular, the split
second decision-making required with a low energy finish. As I (and
others) have said, I can solve half the problem by finishing high, but I
can not protect myself against poor decision-making by others when I am
committed to land.
Enjoy your finish gates, just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit...
Marc
It isn't meant to address the known problems of the finish gate, but to
explore the unknowns of the cylinder. A final control turn point is a
good idea in my opinion. I don't think the rules exculde its use. It is
a choice... easily implemented by a CD who listens to the opinions of
competitors.
The decision to fly through the gate or roll is hardly split second. If
you are below your safety altitude at four miles out and less than 100
knots, the decision has already been made. That's when you should be
calling a rolling finish and navigating appropriately. A rolling finish
needn't be used only when a belly flop onto the nearest bit or runway
is your best option. My rolling finishes usually involve an application
of spoilers so I'll land well short of the traffic around the gate.
There are situations where we are pulling up on the stick during the
last several thousand feet to the airport fence, but this has
absolutely nothing to do with finish gates.
The band of energy you need to be in to complete a safe pattern
insertion from 50 feet agl is pretty wide, from 100 knots up to
redline. If you find yourself unable to measure this until you are
already within the airport boundaries, you need to work on this skill.
Clearly, we are discussing this because there are pilots attending
races who cannot do this.
I can hear the argument. Why should I get better at the finish gate.
It's an unsafe artifact from an earlier era of the sport. Fine. But the
lack of skill demonstrated in today's finish gate will find its way to
the finish cylinder - same cause, different effects. I guess I'm making
the argument that guns don't kill, people do. Pretty hard to swallow
for a captial "L" liberal like me (please, not to be confused with a
Democrat!).
Marc, I guess it comes down to this... CDs can solve one of the
problems. The other, to me, is like making the decision to land out.
You can either admit at some safe altitude that the risk of continuing
the search for lift is too great and get on with making a safe pattern,
or you can wait until a safe landing is nearly impossible. Same type of
judgement for the finish gate, slightly different set of skills.
OC
Checking out again for the next few weeks. Back channel if you come up
with anything inspired.
Cheers,
Chris
1MoClimb
March 20th 05, 08:30 PM
Here is why I personally will not fly to a finish line again:
Last year during a regional contest the CD decided to set a finish line
to "allow for pictures to be taken". Finish direction was South to
North and explicitly announced and documented on the task sheet. The
classes had MAT and POST tasks with obviously different finishing
directions. When I announced my finish and FROM direction, no other
traffic had called in. I approached from the SW and "hooked" to the
North while crossing the finish line at about 100'. At exactly the
same time, a foreign competitor (happened to be a former World
Champion) finished direcly from the North at the same altitude. He was
less than 100' away from me and I just caught a glimpse of him, enough
to scare me to the bone. Some idiots on the ground cheered as my wife
told me later, they thought that was a fine stunt.
This could easily have resulted in two fatalities that - had they
happened - might have rendered this entire subject pointless for all to
see. To me, it is pointless and I just hope that those insisting on
having gliders converge on one point at max speeds at the end of a
tiring flight might come to see it the same way.
Herb Kilian, J7
Denis
March 20th 05, 09:07 PM
a écrit :
> OK, it's clear people aren't seeing cylinder finish dynamics very well,
> except for JJ who believes the fastest distance between two points
> involves sneaking up from behind. ...Smile...
from which country are this finish procedure, and what is its definition ?
--
Denis
R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?
Andy Blackburn
March 20th 05, 09:29 PM
At 21:00 20 March 2005, 1moclimb wrote:
>Here is why I personally will not fly to a finish line
>again:
>Last year during a regional contest the CD decided
>to set a finish line
>to 'allow for pictures to be taken'. Finish direction
>was South to
>North and explicitly announced and documented on the
>task sheet. The
>classes had MAT and POST tasks with obviously different
>finishing
>directions.
Ouch! It seems pretty dumb to set up a gate finish
without having a final
turnpoint on the 'from' side of the gate.
9B
1MoClimb
March 20th 05, 11:52 PM
Andy Blackburn wrote:
> >
> Ouch! It seems pretty dumb to set up a gate finish
> without having a final
> turnpoint on the 'from' side of the gate.
>
> 9B
Andy,
But that's what has been promoted by fiveniner and other kamikazes on
this list for days (weeks?) now! Since you can't account for all the
stupidity, ignorance and just plain old aw****s among us pilots, the
finish gate maybe just destined to become your gate to depart from this
world.
Fiveniner and KC will tell you or your grieving family that it's at
least a macho way to go!
J7
Kilo Charlie
March 21st 05, 12:32 AM
"1MoClimb" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Fiveniner and KC will tell you or your grieving family that it's at
> least a macho way to go!
>
> J7
I don't know you Herb and you don't know me so why post personal insults
like this? Just to make sure that you understand things.....I am a
pediatric intensivist and have seen many, many children die. You are sorely
mistaken if you somehow think you know more than I about grieving.
You and some of the other safety proponents just do not get it. You are
swallowing hook, line and sinker any and all proposals that have the word
"safety" attached to them without eversomuch as questioning whether in fact
they may be safer. Using your reasoning we should do away with gaggle
starts and thermaling with more than one glider.....I have been closer than
you described on numerous occasions in both of those situations.
JJ has attempted to approach this from a CD perspective and in that light
would agree that the CD of the contest you are describing had to accept some
amount of responsibility for tasking in such a way as to allow this conflict
to occur. All of us supporting the gate finish feel that a final common
(steering) turn is important and that "hooking" the gate no longer is
acceptable.
Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix
Once again, Casey is much politer than I'll be. Herb, if you knew me,
you'd know that I take safety very, very seriously. I'm more than happy
to discuss, quietly, away from the crowd and face to face the poor
judgement exhibited by pilots of any level of experience. I'm willing
to take the denial, the anger, and the threats... yes, threats, because
if I'm talking to you it's because I've grown weary of running to
accident scenes. (It doesn't take many.) I'm also willing to hear them
out when they think I'm flying outside my envelope.
There's one thing that kills more pilots than anything else: IGNORANCE.
The problem with ignorance is that it makes the flight envelope very
naroow indeed. The tragedy of ignorance is that it can be overcome with
very little effort.
I'll share with you a reflection of the 18M Nationals at Uvalde last
summer. Over the past few years, I've been taking the lead for the
gaggle more and more. One of the great disadvantages of doing this is
that everytime a find a good thermal, I have to soften my initial pull
and turn to enter the core because there's just no telling who is going
to be behind me and whether or not they are paying attention. I've had
pilots follow me, then make absolutely to effort at all to avoid me as
I try to center on the core. They simply barrel straight through.
7F and I started together one day. Just the two of us. I was able to
gain a little on him in the first couple of glides, so he was a little
behind (not more than a quarter mile, at most). I came in to a strong
core, and started a gentle pull, then realized who was behind me. I
pulled hard and banked to 60 degrees. What a beautiful site as Sam
pulled up underneath me, within no more than two wingspans, and parked
at 180 degrees, in the core and at the same angle of bank. True
airmanship - not practiced by nearly enough of us.
I'll keep your contest ID in mind. I have no quibble with you. Your
entitled to your opinion, of finish gates and me. But I'll keep my
pulls gentle if I know you're behind me. For my sake, not yours.
Cheers,
OC
Marc Ramsey
March 21st 05, 01:51 AM
wrote:
> The band of energy you need to be in to complete a safe pattern
> insertion from 50 feet agl is pretty wide, from 100 knots up to
> redline. If you find yourself unable to measure this until you are
> already within the airport boundaries, you need to work on this skill.
> Clearly, we are discussing this because there are pilots attending
> races who cannot do this.
You're right, some of us who attend races cannot, or will not, do this.
I haven't made a pass under 300 feet in at least 10 years. Part of it
is the fact that, as with many, this "skill" was of necessity
self-taught (the closest I've ever come to being killed in a low pass
was when a CFIG was flying from the back seat). Part of it is the fact
that the vast majority of my glider flying is now at airports where
there is a mix of traffic, and low passes are simply not appropriate.
When I honestly looked at my past history of low passes, the number of
minor "incidents" (near encounters with other aircraft that I had not
previously been aware of, ending up with a less than expected amount of
energy, not remembering an important checklist item, etc.) ended up
being just too large a percentage of the overall total. So, I came to
the conclusion that I should no longer work on this particular skill...
Marc
1MoClimb
March 21st 05, 02:29 AM
>>I don't know you Herb and you don't know me so why post personal
insults
like this? Just to make sure that you understand things.....I am a
pediatric intensivist and have seen many, many children die. You are
sorely
mistaken if you somehow think you know more than I about grieving. ..<<
Casey,
You are certainly right, I wouldn't know how you might console a
grieving family, I went too far in a bad attempt to be cynical.
Comparing the situation I described with pre-start gaggles and
on-course situations including multiple gliders in the same airspace
doesn't make sense. The altitude and low RELATIVE speeds give us
second chances that we don't have down low and when flying in opposing
directions. I have flown through many finish gates feeling just as
exhilarated as you and enjoying every moment of it. Sad thing is that
the outcome of a midair in that situation just doesn't leave us any
second chances. Let's do our low finishes away from the contest crowds
with a reliable spotter on the ground that makes sure nobody else might
get involved.
Again, sorry for getting personal with you and anyone else feeling
strongly about flying low and fast and let's all be careful out there!
Herb, J7
Papa3
March 21st 05, 02:34 AM
Well, I'm still on the fence, even after wading through the last 100 or so
posts. I see positives AND negatives in both sides of the Gate vs. Cylinder
argument. I appreciate folks like JJ and OC taking the time to put some
structure around the argument - maybe we can stick to that approach?
Let's break this into two different issues:
1. Arrival over the field with insufficient energy with the "50 foot gate."
This certainly a topic worth addressing, but I'm not sure the cylinder is
the only answer. A (seemingly) simple approach is to just raise the floor to
some other number, say 200 feet for argument's sake. I'm not suggesting this
is what we should do, but it does seem that the issue of arriving at the
airport with an altitude safety margin can be addressed in different ways.
2. So, I'm really drawn to the discussion about avoiding midairs. I'm not
convinced by either JJs logic or OCs rebuttal - yet. Here's my thinking.
Both approaches are, in practical terms, a line. One just happens to be
curved. Okay, starting to sound like Bill Clinton here... hang on. By this I
mean the following:
- On MOST (not all) days, the majority of finishers are approaching from the
same quadrant. The one exception is the MAT, but even then, there is usually
a preferred quadrant, either based on geography, soaring conditions on the
day, location of the close-in turnpoint, etc. For all practical purposes,
we're all headed for a reasonably small chunk of airspace at the end of the
flight. When we talk of a midair, we have to think of a number of different
scenarios:
* Lateral convergence on the finish run (ie. two ships at the same altitude
converging wingtip to wingtip)
* Vertical convergence on the finish run (ie. two ships at different
altitudes converging canopy to belly)
* Head on finish run (no clarification required)
* Pattern vs. finisher (ie. one ship on finish run conflicting with others
in the pattern)
I'm still doodling this stuff on paper, but so far, I can see some pros and
cons to both. One thing that is obvious in drawing some pictures is that
gate-hooking (the cause of my scariest moments over the last 15 years) could
easily be avoided by modifying the procedures. We seem to have equated the
"optical gate" with a finish line without thinking about the possibilities
now that flights are controlled 100% by GPS. For instance, steering turns
with x radius located y miles out. It sounds complicated, but it really
isn't. Task sheet would read something like this:
Start- Cylinder A
Turpoint 1 - Rockville
Turpoint 2 - Sink Hole
Turnpoint 3 - Ridgeville
Finish Point B
Finish Line
No fix within the Finish Point = landout Thus, it puts some real teeth
into knowing the finish direction and makes it a conscious part of any
after-launch task change. Anyway, I hope we can keep disecting the problem
without resorting to name calling - I owe it to the wife and kids.
P3
Andy Blackburn
March 21st 05, 03:03 AM
At 03:00 21 March 2005, 1moclimb wrote:
>>>I don't know you Herb and you don't know me so why
>>>post personal
>insults
>like this? Just to make sure that you understand things.....I
>am a
>pediatric intensivist and have seen many, many children
>die. You are
>sorely
>mistaken if you somehow think you know more than I
>about grieving. ..<
<
>
>Casey,
>
>You are certainly right, I wouldn't know how you might
>console a
>grieving family, I went too far in a bad attempt to
>be cynical.
>Comparing the situation I described with pre-start
>gaggles and
>on-course situations including multiple gliders in
>the same airspace
>doesn't make sense. The altitude and low RELATIVE
>speeds give us
>second chances that we don't have down low and when
>flying in opposing
>directions. I have flown through many finish gates
>feeling just as
>exhilarated as you and enjoying every moment of it.
> Sad thing is that
>the outcome of a midair in that situation just doesn't
>leave us any
>second chances. Let's do our low finishes away from
>the contest crowds
>with a reliable spotter on the ground that makes sure
>nobody else might
>get involved.
>
>Again, sorry for getting personal with you and anyone
>else feeling
>strongly about flying low and fast and let's all be
>careful out there!
>
>Herb, J7
Points to Herb for maturity and humility....
9B
Wish I had time to keep wrangling this one with you, but work keeps
getting in the way. Anyway, we are both indulging a little hyperbole to
suit our arguments. That said, others are trying to measure the pros
and cons of each. If I could boil my argument down to a single phrase,
it would be "don't put so much trust in the cylinder." It has problems
too.
There are cleary scenarios where the cylinder is a better choice. There
are also scenarios where the finish line is preferred. Mixing them
makes sense. But in both cases we need to put some language on paper
and make pilots read it, understand it, and follow a set of procedures
that reduce the risks inherent in each. For example, when and how to
call approach to the cylinder. ("OC, 4 miles" --from the cylinder, not
the center point-- "from the SSE at 1700 msl and 130 knots")
Translated: I'm high, I'm fast. If you are inching your way to the
cylinder just high enough to nick 500 agl, you might want to give me a
heads up.
Hooking the finish gate. This seems to be the overriding concern of
most people responding. I can understand this. This is so easily solved
that it surprises me it's a problem. Tell Charlie not to admonish
pilots for asking for gate direction confirmation. It's just too
important to make into a "Why don't you guys read the task sheet"
exercise. Set a steering turnpoint as suggested and require a radio
call as you approach it. Penalize any pilot flying through the gate the
wrong way 1000 points for unsafe flying. (World Champions are keenly
attuned to protecting their points.) Or, ROTATE THE GATE!!! This is so
simple, I'm surprised no one has considered it. Make the airport
boundaries the endpoints of the finish line, and set the gate
perpendicular to the final leg of each task. (This solves JJs problem
of all pilots racing to the nearest point on the gate as all points on
a rotating gate are pretty much the same distance from the last
turnpoint.) Use a cylinder for pilot option MATs and a line for ASTs
and TATs. And establish adequate procedures... radio and airmanship for
each.
No doubt about it, head ons are scary. Odd we haven't heard anyone say
"I don't want to do this anymore because I'm afraid I'll stall spin at
some point after the finish." This is the most common accident
associated with the gate. And it never appears to be the result of near
misses. I'll also point out that no one, absolutely no one has
suggested we ban SE ridge missions at Mifflin. More head on traffic
there in an hour than you're likely to see in a lifetime anywhere else
(well, I guess the Whites and St. Auban are right up there as well).
JJ, I like the finish gate for all the reasons I've stated. I enjoy
applying the required skills and enjoy doing it with others. If we can
make it better and safer, I'm all for it. I'll ask you to take the next
step with the cylinder... stop talking density and start drafting some
regs that give me and others the sense that we're not going to get
mowed down during the finish implosion. Remember, everyone is
navigating to the same point. And the mechanics of the finish require
us to be more heads down than we would like. I'm coming to Montague
next year for the Nats, and if you are the CD, I want to be sure that
everyone understands how we're going to maintain safe separation as we
approach the cylinder, some of us at warp speed after a good thermal at
Callaghan, others contour flying Gunsight at best L/D.
OK, now I really gotta go.
wrote:
> My, My Oscar Charlie, Don't know where to start with all that?
Explain
> to me again how spreading out the finishers over a 30 degree arc
gives
> more crowding than funneling them through the nearest corner of the
> finish line?
>
> When using the finish line the CD changes the finish direction in
> accordance with each day's task; this leads to "doing it like
> yesterday" and has often been the reason someone finishes in the
wrong
> direction. I consider this the most dangerous situation in soaring.
> Can't happen with the cylinder.
>
> How about my favorite maneuver, hooking the gate. Don't need that
with
> the cylinder, do we? You gave us a distorted view of an AST finish,
bet
> you don't want to talk about a MAT, now do you? The cylinder provides
> 360 degrees of finish airspace for the MAT. Your finish
> line.........................well, you get the message, or do you?
> :>) JJ
Herb,
Didn't see this before I posted. Thanks. You've earned my respect. My
respect may not count for much in the scheme of things, but even a
penny gained...
Fly safe. The best part of soaring is sitting around in the evening
remembering the particulars of your flight with friends over a cold
beer. Everything should be geared towards a safe arrival home, whether
by trailer, through a finish gate, through the wall of a cylinder, or a
simple, unhurried arrival at the IP.
OC
Rotate the gate?
Alternate gates?
My God, we got people that can't remember which way to finish and your
solution is to use the finish line one day and the finish cylinder, the
next? Have you ever heard the term KISS? It stands for Keep It Simple,
Stupid and is a time honered way to prevent screw-ups. We have contests
with several classes and they don't all go on the same task. To further
complicate things, we often change tasks, sometimes in the air. The
KISS rule is now streatched pretty thin and you want to add another
layer of confusion by "rotating the gate"? Which way and for which
class? BTW, rotating doesn't solve anything, the pilots will still head
for the nearest corner, won't they?
I see your comments as nothing more than attempt to keep alive a dying
dinosaur, so that you can continue to have "fun". P7 shared his near
death experience in the dinosaur gate and you told him there was poor
judgement and ignorance involved. Well, now we have a point on which we
can agree; Poor judgement to keep using the proven unsafe finish gate
and ignorance on the part of an organization that continues to allow
its use.
JJ Sinclair
BTW, you'll see no dinosaurs at Montague.
Howard Banks
March 21st 05, 03:14 PM
Chris:
Mixing finish line and cylinder on the same day is
a very bad idea,
though it happens (most regionals have FAI and sports
classes).
I don't think that it what you were advocating however,
just
that both options should be available, which is obviously
correct.
howard
Sam Fly
March 21st 05, 04:35 PM
The finish gate at TSA, when I CD a contest is a line. All task's will
have a final turnpoint 5 miles south of TSA. This way we funnel all
finishers the same direction. No finishers are allowed over the runway,
they must finish on the east side of the field for a landing to the
south. 95% of our contests have a south wind.
You guys are trying to legislate rules by common sense...Common sense is
hard to find.
Sam Fly
wrote:
> Herb,
>
> Didn't see this before I posted. Thanks. You've earned my respect. My
> respect may not count for much in the scheme of things, but even a
> penny gained...
>
> Fly safe. The best part of soaring is sitting around in the evening
> remembering the particulars of your flight with friends over a cold
> beer. Everything should be geared towards a safe arrival home, whether
> by trailer, through a finish gate, through the wall of a cylinder, or a
> simple, unhurried arrival at the IP.
>
> OC
>
Hi Papa 3,
There is something else going on is US racing that hasn't beed
mentioned. We're not calling the old Assigned task very much, any more;
Parowan last year----5 TAT's and only 1 AST
Standard's " " ----2 MAT's and 2 TAT's
Seniors this year-----2 AST's and 4 TAT's
So what does this have to do with the finish?
The vast majority will be coming from other than a known last turn
point. They may be coming from all directions in the case of the MAT
and from a wide quadrant in the case of the TAT, depending on its
radius and distance from home plate. If for no other reason, this makes
it a "No Brainer" to use the finish cylinder.
JJ
Andy Blackburn
March 21st 05, 05:55 PM
At 17:30 21 March 2005, wrote:
>Hi Papa 3,
>There is something else going on is US racing that
>hasn't beed
>mentioned. We're not calling the old Assigned task
>very much, any more;
>Parowan last year----5 TAT's and only 1 AST
>Standard's ' ' ----2 MAT's and 2 TAT's
>Seniors this year-----2 AST's and 4 TAT's
>
>The vast majority will be coming from other than a
>known last turn
>point. They may be coming from all directions in the
>case of the MAT
>and from a wide quadrant in the case of the TAT, depending
>on its
>radius and distance from home plate. If for no other
>reason, this makes
>it a 'No Brainer' to use the finish cylinder.
Your last two posts are your best arguments to-date
JJ. Perversely it's less
about inherent safety of one finish versus the other
and more about simple
practicality of making it work with contemporary task
calling.
A gate doesn't make sense if you can't define a finish
course line to the
gate so we're not going to see many gate finishes if
people don't call
suitable tasks. The mixed class tasking at regionals
also makes it harder
to use anything but the common denominator finish.
So we are either left calling only ASTs and TATs with
decent final legs, or
having a set of steering turnpoints at the end of every
task for all classes.
Only the truly dedicated will adopt these additional
tasking constraints just
to have a finish gate.
So you see you don't really need to kill the gate because
it's already dead.
Of course beating a dead horse is a time-honored tradition
here. <g>
9B
John Sinclair
March 21st 05, 11:22 PM
9B,
Does this mean your a convert? Can I take you off my
Neanderthal list? We don't have to hug, do we?
:>) JJ
At 18:00 21 March 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>At 17:30 21 March 2005, wrote:
>>Hi Papa 3,
>>There is something else going on is US racing that
>>hasn't beed
>>mentioned. We're not calling the old Assigned task
>>very much, any more;
>>Parowan last year----5 TAT's and only 1 AST
>>Standard's ' ' ----2 MAT's and 2 TAT's
>>Seniors this year-----2 AST's and 4 TAT's
>>
>>The vast majority will be coming from other than a
>>known last turn
>>point. They may be coming from all directions in the
>>case of the MAT
>>and from a wide quadrant in the case of the TAT, depending
>>on its
>>radius and distance from home plate. If for no other
>>reason, this makes
>>it a 'No Brainer' to use the finish cylinder.
>
>Your last two posts are your best arguments to-date
>JJ. Perversely it's less
>about inherent safety of one finish versus the other
>and more about simple
>practicality of making it work with contemporary task
>calling.
>
>A gate doesn't make sense if you can't define a finish
>course line to the
>gate so we're not going to see many gate finishes if
>people don't call
>suitable tasks. The mixed class tasking at regionals
>also makes it harder
>to use anything but the common denominator finish.
>
>
>So we are either left calling only ASTs and TATs with
>decent final legs, or
>having a set of steering turnpoints at the end of every
>task for all classes.
>Only the truly dedicated will adopt these additional
>tasking constraints just
>to have a finish gate.
>
>So you see you don't really need to kill the gate because
>it's already dead.
>Of course beating a dead horse is a time-honored tradition
>here.
>
>9B
>
>
>
>
Andy Blackburn
March 22nd 05, 12:34 AM
At 23:30 21 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>9B,
>Does this mean your a convert? Can I take you off my
>Neanderthal list? We don't have to hug, do we?
>:>) JJ
I think I still have a bicameral mind - not full conscious,
let alone self-
actualized enough for a hug. Uggh, snort, grr.
I'll just have to do my low pass 1 mi out and pull
up to nick the bottom of
the cylinder. Man the ball turrets!
;-)
9B
JJ, I'm genuinely surprised. You're getting hornery in your old age!
And maybe just a little too uncivil... ;-)
Let's get one thing clear. I've asked, repeatedly, for you to explain
how we're to manage traffic on the face of cylinder during ASTs. And
you've offered NOTHING specific, except to imply that I simply don't
get it. I am raising valid concerns, have put some small effort into
explaining my concerns in prose and pictures, and I'm getting dogmatc
replies. Which tells me that there aren't well-reasoned answers, yet.
They'll come, I'm sure, but apparently not until we've scared ourselves
silly a few times as we learn the disadvantages of the cylinder by
trial and error. Note that other than Montague last year (only 13
competitors), I'm not aware of a cylinder being used for non MAT tasks
at the Stds, 15s, 18, or Open Nats... that is, we haven't tested it in
conditions where a dozen or more gliders of equal performance might
approach the cyliner in a very short span of time.
I accept that you've established yourself as the Cylindrical Champion
and thus accept a certain amount of righteous indignation that I and
others might prefer and justify demon finish lines. But now you need to
convince a few of us who have valid concerns about high/low speed
conflicts that these have been thought through and adequately
addressed.
As I noted earlier, I see the dynamics of the cylinder as very much
similar to the old start gate. Worse, since the effective gate size is
smaller and the wing level runs much longer (at least in the start gate
you were able to scan traffic for several minutes while circling at the
IP prior to your run - even so, it was a anxious half minute in the
gate).
C'mon JJ. Give me some substance. Show me some real numbers. Use my
valid assumptions to prove me wrong instead of offering up an idyllic
paint by numbers picture.
Cheers,
Chris O'Callaghan
Bert Willing
March 22nd 05, 08:25 AM
How about you going flying a little bit more instead of running dry
arguments on a newsgroup?
--
Bert Willing
ASW20 "TW"
> a écrit dans le message de news:
. com...
> JJ, I'm genuinely surprised. You're getting hornery in your old age!
> And maybe just a little too uncivil... ;-)
>
> Let's get one thing clear. I've asked, repeatedly, for you to explain
> how we're to manage traffic on the face of cylinder during ASTs. And
> you've offered NOTHING specific, except to imply that I simply don't
> get it. I am raising valid concerns, have put some small effort into
> explaining my concerns in prose and pictures, and I'm getting dogmatc
> replies. Which tells me that there aren't well-reasoned answers, yet.
> They'll come, I'm sure, but apparently not until we've scared ourselves
> silly a few times as we learn the disadvantages of the cylinder by
> trial and error. Note that other than Montague last year (only 13
> competitors), I'm not aware of a cylinder being used for non MAT tasks
> at the Stds, 15s, 18, or Open Nats... that is, we haven't tested it in
> conditions where a dozen or more gliders of equal performance might
> approach the cyliner in a very short span of time.
>
> I accept that you've established yourself as the Cylindrical Champion
> and thus accept a certain amount of righteous indignation that I and
> others might prefer and justify demon finish lines. But now you need to
> convince a few of us who have valid concerns about high/low speed
> conflicts that these have been thought through and adequately
> addressed.
>
> As I noted earlier, I see the dynamics of the cylinder as very much
> similar to the old start gate. Worse, since the effective gate size is
> smaller and the wing level runs much longer (at least in the start gate
> you were able to scan traffic for several minutes while circling at the
> IP prior to your run - even so, it was a anxious half minute in the
> gate).
>
>
> C'mon JJ. Give me some substance. Show me some real numbers. Use my
> valid assumptions to prove me wrong instead of offering up an idyllic
> paint by numbers picture.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Chris O'Callaghan
>
Sorry,
don't have time to participate in ongoing discussions, but I did pen
another picture to help JJ get visualize how a rotating gate works
better than a fixed one. I know due consideration isn't the theme of
this thread, but thought I'd offer it up anyway. The link won't be
active until late this afternoon, when I have a chance to upload the
image.
http://users.adelphia.net/~cocallag/masatask/rotatinggatePNG.png
John Sinclair
March 22nd 05, 06:18 PM
At 01:00 22 March 2005, wrote:
>JJ, I'm genuinely surprised. You're getting hornery
>in your old age!
>And maybe just a little too uncivil... ;-)
Yep, I do get a little honery when I see a proven safer
way, ignored. Old ways die hard, Chris, remember who
called all the nats, last year. He loves the finish
line and he loved the start gate before that. Why did
we drop it? Because it was a cumbersome dinosaur and
GPS gave us a better way.
We score the finish line by GPS, right now. So why
are we still doing it? It server as nothing more than
a starting point for our low altitude air show, one
that violates FAR's, also.
You want numbers, try these; 5 vs. 0 ------------five
accidents in the finish gate and zero in the finish
cylinder.
I give no respect to your concerns about conflicts
at the edge of a 1 mile cylinder because it is nothing
short of redicules to suggest that the separation is
anything less than 10 time greater than what exists
in the corner of the finish line.
There is a better way,
JJ
Andy Blackburn
March 22nd 05, 07:47 PM
At 18:30 22 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
> It serves as nothing more than
>a starting point for our low altitude air show, one
>that violates FAR's, also.
>
Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
also violates the FARs
unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
the way to to the
landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
nose-up climb
upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
'aerobatics'.
JJ will be insepcting all GPS traces at Montague to
insure violaters get DNCs
for the day. Right?
9B
John Sinclair
March 22nd 05, 09:46 PM
, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
>also violates the FARs
>unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
>the way to to the
>landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
>nose-up climb
>upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
>'aerobatics'.
There is no FAR that says you can't go below 500 feet
anywhere as long as you are in the act of landing.
If I leave the 1 mile cylinder at or below 500 feet,
you can bet I'm in the act of landing and will do so,
just as soon as I get to the airport.
>JJ will be insepcting all GPS traces at Montague to
>insure violaters get DNCs
>for the day. Right?
No, but you bring up a good point. Heaven forbid, should
we have an accident, we are producing a complete log
of everything we are doing, complete with altitude,
time and exact position. The feds won't even have to
bring out their tape measure, will they?
JJ
Andy Blackburn
March 22nd 05, 11:37 PM
At 22:00 22 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>>Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
>>also violates the FARs
>>unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
>>the way to to the
>>landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
>>nose-up climb
>>upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
>>'aerobatics'.
>
>There is no FAR that says you can't go below 500 feet
>anywhere as long as you are in the act of landing.
>If I leave the 1 mile cylinder at or below 500 feet,
>you can bet I'm in the act of landing and will do so,
>just as soon as I get to the airport.
Whoa just a minute there partner, the distance between
the cylinder edge
and the pattern IP is no more a part of the landing
pattern than the path
through the finish gate is. If the logic is 'I'm low
so I must be landing', that
applies to the gate as well. So if we are going to
be literal about the FARs
then you are not in the act of landing until you enter
the official pattern,
everything else is flying cross country below 500'
- including the path from
the cylinder to the airport. QED.
> The feds won't even have to
>bring out their tape measure, will they?
Talk about adding insult to injury - let's hope not.
If you are serious about
your interpretation of the FARs then you'll need to
be prepared to enforce
penalties on anyone you dips below 500' before entering
the pattern. You
could be set up for a liability issue if you don't.
9B
John Sinclair
March 23rd 05, 01:25 AM
9B,
Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make
a straight in landing. I Disagree.
Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention
of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500
feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't
want to justify to the federalies.
JJ
Bob Korves
March 23rd 05, 01:56 AM
"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
(snip)
> No, but you bring up a good point. Heaven forbid, should
> we have an accident, we are producing a complete log
> of everything we are doing, complete with altitude,
> time and exact position. The feds won't even have to
> bring out their tape measure, will they?
> JJ
I agree with your stand on the cylinder vs.gate, JJ, but I don't agree about
the logger. Nowhere in the FAR's that I know of does it say that I need to
show my logger (or its files) to the FAA. They can check my pilot's
license, my identification, my glider paperwork, maybe my parachute packing
card, but not my logger. They will still need their tape measure. If they
want to inspect the logger post mortem, OK, it probably won't matter much to
me if I was legal or not at that point.
Actually, my heirs may not want the FAA or the insurance company looking at
the logger post mortem, either. I don't know if they would prevail in such
a case.
Sorry that I am taking this off topic.
-Bob Korves
Andy Blackburn
March 23rd 05, 02:29 AM
At 01:30 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>9B,
>Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make
>a straight in landing. I Disagree.
I think you can do pretty much anything necessary to
keep the airplane in
one piece in an emergency. If you're saying you can
fly whatever type of
pattern you want at your own discretion, than we probably
do disagree. I
would consider a straight-in landing an emergency and
you'd probably be
justified even if you cut off other traffic in the
pattern to do it. If you're
doing it because you deliberately went for the bottom
of the 500' cylinder
without enough energy to make a proper pattern then
you are probably
subject to penalty by the Feds - at least as you've
defined the rules.
>Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention
>of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500
>feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't
>want to justify to the federalies.
You yourself said it's legal to go low at the edge
of the cylinder then pull up
to 500' to nick the bottom - and that it had specifically
been approved by
the rules committee. Are you now arguing against this?
It seems like you
are splitting hairs about low passes. A best L/D finish
at 500' and 1 mile will
leave you at a bit over 300' over the airport (+/-
wherever the pattern is).
So what's a low pass for you? 299', 199', 99'? Seems
like your definition is
tailored to whatever fits the cylinder finish. To
be clear, I think gate
finishes are legal as long as you don't buzz the FBO,
the parking lot, etc. I
think arguing that they are illegal also puts cylinder
finishes in that
category unless you are willing to really torture the
facts to argue that
something different happens between 50' and 300'.
The other thing that hasn't really been discussed is
how much any of these
rules affect pilot decision-making. I for one set up
my final glides at a
minimum of Mc=4 plus 1000' irrespective of the type
of finish used. Why?
Because if I am going to have enough energy for a gate
finish, I'll be at
500' with a ton of energy at 1 mile anyway. Some people
seem to think
that if you add 500' to the finish altitude people
will add 500' to their final
glides. I seriously doubt this. So I'm not sure if
we've bought ourselves
anything close to what the advocates claim in terms
of additional margin
since I also believe a pilot at 800' and three miles
is more likely to press on
that a pilot at 300' and three miles. Do I think the
cylinder is less safe? I'll
reserve judgement until we have more information about
stall/spin
incidents at the edge of the cylinder, but for now
I don't think it's worse. Do
I think it's better? A glider at 100 knots at 50'
has about the same energy
as a glider at 300 feet and pattern speed. That's not
a big difference.
Does it take some of the poetry out of the sport? Yes,
I think it does. Not
everybody cares about poetry though.
The point I've conceded is that the modern 'fly anywhere'
tasks make it
logistically harder to implement gate finishes, so
I think they won't get used
much - because of the hassle if for no other reason.
9B
comcast webnews
March 23rd 05, 02:59 AM
> I'm not aware of a cylinder being used for non MAT tasks
> at the Stds, 15s, 18, or Open Nats... that is, we haven't tested it in
> conditions where a dozen or more gliders of equal performance might
> approach the cyliner in a very short span of time.
> Chris O'Callaghan
>
In the 2002 Sports & 18m Nationals in Lubbock we had about 81 gliders in the
contest - about evenly split between sports & 18m. A finish cylinder was
used and in 10 days x 80 gliders i don't recall any serious issues. The 18m
gliders were more often finishing in a short span of time. I've heard a lot
of Theories on why the finish cylinder is unsafe, but almost all the
contests I've done in the last 3+ years have used cylinders - in Practice my
opinion is they are safer than finish gates.
Years ago when flying gates the CD changed start & finish directions on
different days. I remember at least 2 guys finishing in the wrong direction
through the gate. I never want to see that again.
Chris R
John Sinclair
March 23rd 05, 04:51 AM
Andy,
FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within
500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary
for takeoff and landing.
If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile
cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the
field and make any appropriate pattern, including no
pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to
dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder
if there is any people, places or things there.
I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves,
but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line?
500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate
crew is sitting at the start of the finish line.
Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish
cylinder.
JJ
Andy Blackburn
March 23rd 05, 05:57 AM
At 05:00 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>Andy,
>FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within
>500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary
>for takeoff and landing.
>
>If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile
>cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the
>field and make any appropriate pattern, including no
>pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to
>dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder
>if there is any people, places or things there.
>
>I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves,
>but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line?
>500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate
>crew is sitting at the start of the finish line.
>Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish
>cylinder.
I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some
good arguments
you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting
hairs because it tries to
read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass
or because, as you say,
'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the
gate is no different than
the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves
a straight line and one
involves a curved line.
If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway?
I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have
a ceremony.
9B
John Sinclair
March 23rd 05, 01:52 PM
Andy,
I think you may have misinterpreted my statement concerning
'diving at the edge of the cylinder'. I don't do that.
I aim to be at 500 feet at 1 mile. As you know, the
scoring program uses the GPS altimiter error, that
existed just prior to take off and applies this error
to the GPS reading in the finish cylinder. Read, you
can miss it by just a few feet. Been there, done that,
so I now start a gentle pull up when my range reads
1 mile. This doesn't have to be any kind of a precise
maneuver and if you miss the exact 1 mile mark, it
doesn't mean anything, just insure you log a couple
of dots above the magic 500 foot point. No math required,
here.
>I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some
>good arguments
>you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting
>hairs because it tries to
>read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass
>or because, as you say,
>'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the
>gate is no different than
>the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves
>a straight line and one
>involves a curved line.
>
>If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway?
We don't, but somebody's still there to say, 'Good
Finish, JJ', It's a tradition, I guess. Sounds good,
but means nothing. I did like hearing Charlie saying,
'Good finish, JJ, Good contest, John'
>I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have
>a ceremony.
Grrrrrrrrr, a Neanderthal hugging a Wuss, maybe we
can sell tickets.
Well, I like the fight you put up, at any rate. I won't tell anyone
you're a nice guy in person... OK?
We'll have to continue to disagree. But I think we've each carried our
argument as far as it can go via a discussion board. Next comes beers
and brawling. Let's plan an evening for the week before the 2006 nats
at the Mexican Restaurant in Yreka. I think we can pull together a few
other people to sit on either side of the teeter-totter. Should be fun!
Cheers and good gliding. And check your six before pulling anywhere, be
it finish line or cylinder.
OC
mm
March 23rd 05, 11:00 PM
"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
...
> 9B,
> Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make
> a straight in landing. I Disagree.
>
> Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention
> of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500
> feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't
> want to justify to the federalies.
> JJ
>
>
>
Your logic says I'd get in trouble (in an airplane) for doing a practice ILS
approach to minimums, overflying the runway, and then entering the pattern
for landing.
In airplanes I've done 50 ft, 150 kts, holding the gear low approaches at
both San Jose and Oakland Internationals, and at NAS Moffett Field. I did
hear from the FAA on one of them; the controller called "nice approach".
John Sinclair
March 23rd 05, 11:46 PM
Let's let the rules committee and the directors decide
if we are taking any unnecessary risks in our sanctioned
contests. I believe we laid out the facts for them.
Cheers,
JJ
At 23:00 23 March 2005, wrote:
>Well, I like the fight you put up, at any rate. I won't
>tell anyone
>you're a nice guy in person... OK?
>
>We'll have to continue to disagree. But I think we've
>each carried our
>argument as far as it can go via a discussion board.
>Next comes beers
>and brawling. Let's plan an evening for the week before
>the 2006 nats
>at the Mexican Restaurant in Yreka. I think we can
>pull together a few
>other people to sit on either side of the teeter-totter.
>Should be fun!
>
>Cheers and good gliding. And check your six before
>pulling anywhere, be
>it finish line or cylinder.
>
>OC
>
>
M B
March 24th 05, 01:15 AM
I suspect that, like the mandatory ELTs, the rules
committe may decide that CDs are too ignorant to decide
for themselves, and take the option away from CDs and
hosting bodies of deciding for themselves to use cylinders.
JJ makes good arguments for some locations, but I'm
not
inclined to bless a decision against finish gates for
every contest everywhere forever. And it sounds like
this is where this is going, just like ELTs.
As a youngster (relatively) who plans to
live a long time, I will likely outlive most of you
and
endure the consequences of either policies that are
too lax OR too strict. Depending on how your ideas
helped or hurt the sport, I will (figuratively) find
your graves and place either flowers or something else
on it to 'reward' your decisions ;)
I'm still on the fence over finish gate vs. cylinder,
for some
locations, but I'm sure I'll have a stronger, wiser
opinion
by the time I'm as old as JJ ;)
At 00:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>Let's let the rules committee and the directors decide
>if we are taking any unnecessary risks in our sanctioned
>contests. I believe we laid out the facts for them.
>Cheers,
>JJ
>
>At 23:00 23 March 2005, wrote:
>>Well, I like the fight you put up, at any rate. I won't
>>tell anyone
>>you're a nice guy in person... OK?
>>
>>We'll have to continue to disagree. But I think we've
>>each carried our
>>argument as far as it can go via a discussion board.
>>Next comes beers
>>and brawling. Let's plan an evening for the week before
>>the 2006 nats
>>at the Mexican Restaurant in Yreka. I think we can
>>pull together a few
>>other people to sit on either side of the teeter-totter.
>>Should be fun!
>>
>>Cheers and good gliding. And check your six before
>>pulling anywhere, be
>>it finish line or cylinder.
>>
>>OC
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Mark J. Boyd
Andy,
You point out many of the unknowns that concern me, while advocates are
taking a "don't worry, be happy" approach to addressing them. I keep
looking for the "name" that characterizes what I think of the
cylinder... You've helped me find it.
"The three monkeys finish"
John Sinclair
March 24th 05, 02:36 PM
OC, Your pessimistic approach to the finish cylinder
makes me wonder just how many times you have flown
it? I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese,
Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you
flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter?
JJ
At 12:00 24 March 2005, wrote:
>Andy,
>
>You point out many of the unknowns that concern me,
>while advocates are
>taking a 'don't worry, be happy' approach to addressing
>them. I keep
>looking for the 'name' that characterizes what I think
>of the
>cylinder... You've helped me find it.
>
>'The three monkeys finish'
>
>
Andy Blackburn
March 24th 05, 05:18 PM
At 15:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese,
>Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you
>flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter?
I had two problems at Parowan that were manageable,
but gave me pause because they could have been worse.
- Six gliders entering the downwind at once. Because
the finish is totally unmanaged, gliders tend to finish
in one sequence, but enter the pattern in a different
sequence several minutes later. In my case it lead
to some maneuvering low on base leg.
- At the cylinder edge, doing 130-140kts I pick up
out of the corner of my eye another competitor on a
perpendicular course with divebrakes full open flying
right at me. I doubt he could see me because he was
nose-high and decending rapidly.
I don't want to be as wuss, because I don't feel particularly
at risk finishing under any system. I would observe
that the times I have been most concerned flying are
when I have encountered conflicting traffic that I
wasn't aware of - someone entering a thermal improperly,
reverse courselines on a flat triangle, etc. Under
any finish scheme, the airport is going to be a high-traffic
area. The real question is will I know where the traffic
is or not? I've done my share of wingtip-to-wingtip
finishes - hooking the gate and everything. But I always
knew where everyone was because our courses slowly
converged over 10, 15, 20 miles. Not so with the cylinder.
Some of the culprit here is the new tasking - this
can't happen in a MAT unless you put a steering turn
in, and TATs spread pilots out too, but some of the
problem is the nature of the cylinder where people
don't always behave in preditcable ways at the line,
probably because they don't have to.
On the energy question, I suspect this represents
100% of JJ's accidents (BTW JJ - you did a nice job
speculating what may have happened in one case. I
for one would like to hear the particulars on the other
4 when you get your energy back). The conventional
wisdom is that a higher finish line will be safer.
My speculation is that we are trading old problems
for new ones - only time will tell. The old problem
is someone, tired and dehydrated, who finishes at 50'
and 90 knots. The new problem is someone, tired and
dehydrated, who finishes at 500', 1 mile out and 50
knots then drifts towards the airport. Both end up
at some sort of confused 'pattern' entry with about
300'. Then we've added a new problem of people who
mijudge the glide and find they need to climb to get
to 500' - I can imagine all kinds of chaos coming out
of that - apparently some has already.
Of course there's no substitute for good judgement
and vigilence - I'm a little concerned that people
feel like the cylinder has absolved them of the need
to stay on the ball while finishing.
Hope that didn't cost me my hug.
9B
Andy Blackburn
March 25th 05, 02:57 AM
At 05:00 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>Andy,
>FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within
>500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary
>for takeoff and landing.
>
>If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile
>cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the
>field and make any appropriate pattern, including no
>pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to
>dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder
>if there is any people, places or things there.
>
>I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves,
>but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line?
>500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate
>crew is sitting at the start of the finish line.
>Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish
>cylinder.
I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some
good arguments
you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting
hairs because it tries to
read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass
or because, as you say,
'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the
gate is no different than
the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves
a straight line and one
involves a curved line.
If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway?
I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have
a ceremony.
9B
John Sinclair
March 25th 05, 02:10 PM
Morning Andy,
I remember a busy day at Parowan, several finishers
milling around. The guy I was most worried about was
slope soaring the near by mountains and just waiting
for things to clear out a bit. The problem comes from
people that finish with excess altitude and that happens
with either gate.
Been working on 'Finish Gate Accident no. 2', but right
now I got to go flying. Post frontal in the valley
and Q's are a popping.
Cheers,
JJ
At 17:30 24 March 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>At 15:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
>>I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese,
>>Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you
>>flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter?
>
>I had two problems at Parowan that were manageable,
>but gave me pause because they could have been worse.
>
>- Six gliders entering the downwind at once. Because
>the finish is totally unmanaged, gliders tend to finish
>in one sequence, but enter the pattern in a different
>sequence several minutes later. In my case it lead
>to some maneuvering low on base leg.
>
>- At the cylinder edge, doing 130-140kts I pick up
>out of the corner of my eye another competitor on a
>perpendicular course with divebrakes full open flying
>right at me. I doubt he could see me because he was
>nose-high and decending rapidly.
>
>I don't want to be as wuss, because I don't feel particularly
>at risk finishing under any system. I would observe
>that the times I have been most concerned flying are
>when I have encountered conflicting traffic that I
>wasn't aware of - someone entering a thermal improperly,
>reverse courselines on a flat triangle, etc. Under
>any finish scheme, the airport is going to be a high-traffic
>area. The real question is will I know where the traffic
>is or not? I've done my share of wingtip-to-wingtip
>finishes - hooking the gate and everything. But I always
>knew where everyone was because our courses slowly
>converged over 10, 15, 20 miles. Not so with the cylinder.
>Some of the culprit here is the new tasking - this
>can't happen in a MAT unless you put a steering turn
>in, and TATs spread pilots out too, but some of the
>problem is the nature of the cylinder where people
>don't always behave in preditcable ways at the line,
>probably because they don't have to.
>
>On the energy question, I suspect this represents
>100% of JJ's accidents (BTW JJ - you did a nice job
>speculating what may have happened in one case. I
>for one would like to hear the particulars on the other
>4 when you get your energy back). The conventional
>wisdom is that a higher finish line will be safer.
>My speculation is that we are trading old problems
>for new ones - only time will tell. The old problem
>is someone, tired and dehydrated, who finishes at 50'
>and 90 knots. The new problem is someone, tired and
>dehydrated, who finishes at 500', 1 mile out and 50
>knots then drifts towards the airport. Both end up
>at some sort of confused 'pattern' entry with about
>300'. Then we've added a new problem of people who
>mijudge the glide and find they need to climb to get
>to 500' - I can imagine all kinds of chaos coming out
>of that - apparently some has already.
>
>Of course there's no substitute for good judgement
>and vigilence - I'm a little concerned that people
>feel like the cylinder has absolved them of the need
>to stay on the ball while finishing.
>
>Hope that didn't cost me my hug.
>
>9B
>
>
>
>
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.