Finish lines

[Thomas Knauff]

Accidents have ocurred when a pilot performs a high speed, low level finish
along the centerline of the runway, or over the airport, then fails to
control the aircraft properly and crashes. In some cases, these displays
have influenced other pilots who do not have the experience or skills to
perform a similar maneuver safely.

To discourage unsafe finishes, would moving the finish line to the side of
the runway so the finish occurs essentially on the downwind leg, so a pilot
would then only need to make essentially a 180 degree turn onto final
approach help?

A contest site could have finish lines to accommodate tasks finishing from
any direction - only one would be specified according to the wind direction
of the day.

In some cases, there may be reasons not to do this of course.

Comments?

--
Thomas Knauff
Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
www.eglider.org

[[email protected]]

A rotating finish line would address the problem: it would be centered
on a point on or near the airport, and would rotate normal to the final
leg of the declared task (assumes the use of a steering TP for MATs).
If it were 1 sm in diameter, it would give ample space for separation
as well as giving the CD and CM latitude in defining no fly zones on
the airport such as the active runway and grandstands, tie downs,
picnic areas, etc.

Perhaps your experiences have been different, but the finish line
accidents (as opposed to incidents) I've seen typically did not involve
traffic. They were something closer to system shut down after crossing
the line, as if stopping the task clock was a reason to stop piloting
the aircraft. By and large, most pilots do not finish into oncoming
traffic on final. We prefer one side or the other. But I suppose
there's always the odd arrival...

Another excercise, just as valuable, would be to better define the
parameters of the rolling finish. We should reduce or eliminate
penalties for good judgement. Any safe landing on the airport should
always be considered a good finish. And most of all, we need to answer
any pilot's request for information... the practice of admonishing
pilots for asking what the finish direction is keeps those in ignorance
from curing themselves before they cross the finish line... in the
wrong direction!

OC

[John Doe]

Careful.... you'll start another finish line/cylinder
debate ;-)

my 2c worth...

This may work at sites where there is a large flat
area round the runway(s), where it 'may' help (although
surely if a pilot has the energy to do a 180 to land
they have the energy to choose which side of the runway
to land), you are asking for trouble if the land either
side of the runway is unlandable. Finish lines have
a certain minimum size (varying by country I think...
1k in the UK but I'm not sure about elsewhere), so
it's probably worth having as much of the line avaliable
to land ahead as possible (the thought of 5 gliders
in a gaggle in a marginal final glide being forced
to funnel themselves through a smaller portion of the
avaliable landing area to avoid finish gate penalties
doesn't appeal).
I think the best way to use a finish line is to
make as much of it avaliable to land straight ahead
from as possible as the people that need most easy
options are those on marginal final glides. Those
that have the energy can choose their own landing area
more freely. This can be improved by briefing pilots
on a landing plan (e.g. slow finishers south of the
runway, fast finishers north and landing to the north
of the runway after a 180 degree turn at the end).

In the situation that the entire finish gate can
be accomodated without forcing people over unlandable
terrain with low energy, then yes, it could theoretically
help reduce conflicts as long as competitors are properly
briefed. However I am not aware of any site where
this would be possible without either shrinking the
finish gate or placing the bulk of it over unlandable
terrain. I think you'd lose a lot of safety for the
slow finishers, whilst gaining very little for the
fast finishers (I am aware of far more marginal final
glide accidents than spin ins after a botched beatup).

At 21:00 02 May 2005, Thomas Knauff wrote:
>Accidents have ocurred when a pilot performs a high
>speed, low level finish
>along the centerline of the runway, or over the airport,
>then fails to
>control the aircraft properly and crashes. In some
>cases, these displays
>have influenced other pilots who do not have the experience
>or skills to
>perform a similar maneuver safely.
>
>To discourage unsafe finishes, would moving the finish
>line to the side of
>the runway so the finish occurs essentially on the
>downwind leg, so a pilot
>would then only need to make essentially a 180 degree
>turn onto final
>approach help?
>
>A contest site could have finish lines to accommodate
>tasks finishing from
>any direction - only one would be specified according
>to the wind direction
>of the day.
>
>In some cases, there may be reasons not to do this
>of course.
>
>Comments?
>
>--
>Thomas Knauff
>Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
>www.eglider.org
>
>
>

[Don Johnstone]

The below is one solution however the concept of a
finish line was around long before loggers could accurately
report height, time and position. We use the logger
to check that the max start height is observed so why
not a minimum finish height. People could still dash
for the line at vne if that is what turns them on but
by setting a minimum finish height at least the organisers
could set a safety margin. The minimum height could
be set to the ability of the least experienced pilot
which would help to avoid the peer pressure aspect
of very low finishes.

You can only ever equal the low flying record.

I do know that the above will be a very unpopular view
with certain people and that I will be accused of taking
the fun out of the sport, however if that saves just
one life it will be worth it.

At 21:00 02 May 2005, Thomas Knauff wrote:
>Accidents have ocurred when a pilot performs a high
>speed, low level finish
>along the centerline of the runway, or over the airport,
>then fails to
>control the aircraft properly and crashes. In some
>cases, these displays
>have influenced other pilots who do not have the experience
>or skills to
>perform a similar maneuver safely.
>
>To discourage unsafe finishes, would moving the finish
>line to the side of
>the runway so the finish occurs essentially on the
>downwind leg, so a pilot
>would then only need to make essentially a 180 degree
>turn onto final
>approach help?
>
>A contest site could have finish lines to accommodate
>tasks finishing from
>any direction - only one would be specified according
>to the wind direction
>of the day.
>
>In some cases, there may be reasons not to do this
>of course.
>
>Comments?
>
>--
>Thomas Knauff
>Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
>www.eglider.org
>
>
>

[nimbusgb]

Thomas Knauff wrote:
> Accidents have ocurred when a pilot performs a high speed, low level
finish
> along the centerline of the runway, or over the airport, then fails
to
> control the aircraft properly and crashes. In some cases, these
displays
> have influenced other pilots who do not have the experience or skills
to
> perform a similar maneuver safely.
>
> To discourage unsafe finishes, would moving the finish line to the
side of
> the runway so the finish occurs essentially on the downwind leg, so a
pilot
> would then only need to make essentially a 180 degree turn onto final
> approach help?
>
> A contest site could have finish lines to accommodate tasks finishing
from
> any direction - only one would be specified according to the wind
direction
> of the day.
>
> In some cases, there may be reasons not to do this of course.
>
> Comments?
>
> --
> Thomas Knauff
> Knauff & Grove Soaring Supplies
> www.eglider.org

With all due respect to Tom's vast knowledge.

'Accidents have occurred when a pilot performs a high speed, low level
finish' just does not hack it for me. Of all the landing/circuit
accidents that we see, what real figures are there that substantiate
the amount of effort that seems to be going in to solving a 'perceived
problem'?

How many accident reports here in the UK for example have the phrase
'following a competition finish' or 'after a practice competition
finish' within them.

I agree that a competition finish is a semi aerobatic maneuver and
should be taught and approached correctly but is it really such a
problem?

Ian

[Kilo Charlie]

"nimbusgb" > wrote in message
ups.com...

> I agree that a competition finish is a semi aerobatic maneuver and
> should be taught and approached correctly but is it really such a
> problem?
>
> Ian

NO! Once again......one cannot legislate good judgement......if we could
there would have been a lot more than finish gates accidents solved.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[[email protected]]

The finish line has served us well for many years, but technology (GPS)
has rendered it an obsolete system that carries with it significant
risks. I know of 5 accidents associated with the finish gate and just
came across a 6th.

01/01/86 Alamogordo Muni, NM

Pilot attempted to make a low pass / practice finish. He remembers 120
knots at 50 feet. Has vague recollection of being pushed against the
straps and objects floating in the cockpit. Then a spinning sensation
followed by dirt in the cockpit. A borrowed Ventus destroyed, his ankle
shattered and broken bone in other foot.

Why was this pilot practicing this maneuver? Because we sanction it,
its part of what we do. It's in the rules. There's a lot of monkey-see,
monkey-do, going on here. This is what the big guys do, think I'll give
it a try. A friend of mine was at 5 feet, landing at Estrella when
suddenly he was looking in the cockpit of a 2-32 coming right down the
runway. The local ride pilot was showing his "ride". what the gig guys
do.

The scoring program uses GPS data to score the finish gate, so what
we're doing is nothing more than a "show & tell" exercise. I believe
the continued use of the finish gate puts pilots and people on the
ground at an unnecessary risk. One more personal liability law suite
and we will be hard pressed to find an insurer that is willing to cover
what we are doing. That means the end of racing. Time to clean up our
act and eliminate a known hasard. The 500 foot / 1 mile cylinder has
been 100% safe, so far. Time to make it mandatory and stop living in
the past.
JJ Sinclair

[[email protected]]

Funny, I thought this discussion was about RACING finishes. JJ, if you
(or anyone else) feels uncomfortable finishing at 50 ft over the
runway, then don't do it - nobody is forcing you and the rules don't
have a max finish height.

But this is racing, not Sunday afternoon boating around. As such, a
certain level of competency is presumed, in order to enjoy the thrills
of the race (yes thrills, admit it...). Why should soaring be any
differerent than other high speed (and presumably dangerous?) sports?
A rookie at Indy has to demonstrate his skill, in return he is allowed
to drive in a very dangerous event - but no-one is forcing him to!

OTOH, I totally agree that if "dangerous" flying is required in order
to race successfully (gaggles, low saves, long low final glides,
marginal weather, low finishes, etc.) then there should be training and
some sort of documentation of it - just as auto racing does. Say a
"practice regional" held to ractice and demonstrate necessary skills
(or do it the week before the race. Or copy how airshow pilots get
their low altitude waivers - get an experienced racing pilot to observe
you and sign you off.

No demonstrated ability, no race, or race with restrictions (no more
than x gliders in a gaggle, no finishes below 500 ft, etc; although
this would be a nighmare to enforce.

So, JJ, please go ahead and finish up there at nosebleed altitudes, and
I'll continue to practice and fly nice low altitude, high energy line
finishes. Because I enjoy them.

Just don't stall and spin down onto me as you are trying to ooch over
that invisible 500' line in the sky!

Kirk
66

It wouldnt hurt day to day flying, either; probably a lot more helpful
than the pretty much useless Biannual.

[Jack]

wrote:

> Pilot attempted to make a low pass / practice finish. He remembers 120
> knots at 50 feet. Has vague recollection of being pushed against the
> straps and objects floating in the cockpit. Then a spinning sensation
> followed by dirt in the cockpit. A borrowed Ventus destroyed, his ankle
> shattered and broken bone in other foot.
>
> Why was this pilot practicing this maneuver? Because we sanction it,
> its part of what we do. It's in the rules. There's a lot of monkey-see,
> monkey-do, going on here.

Say, JJ, did they point you at the range and tell you, "here's some 20mm and
some little blue bombs -- now go do what you've seen in the films"? Or did
they give you a bunch of dual training, good briefs and debriefs, and lots
of practice?

Are we ignoring training while trying to legislate safety? Why didn't he
know how to do the maneuver safely, and under what conditions not to attempt it?


Jack

[Andy Blackburn]

At 18:30 03 May 2005, wrote:
>Funny, I thought this discussion was about RACING finishes.
> JJ, if you
>(or anyone else) feels uncomfortable finishing at 50
>ft over the
>runway, then don't do it - nobody is forcing you and
>the rules don't
>have a max finish height.

I guess this debate wasn't dead, it was just resting...

9B

[John Sinclair]

>Say, JJ, did they point you at the range and tell you,
>'here's some 20mm and
>some little blue bombs -- now go do what you've seen
>in the films'? Or did
>they give you a bunch of dual training, good briefs
>and debriefs, and lots
>of practice?

Minimum 'foul' altitudes were established for range
work. Before that, jocks were flying into the ground.
Under my proposal, your minimum 'foul' altitude would
be 500 feet.

>Are we ignoring training while trying to legislate
>safety?

Come on, we can't even get the assembly check into
the rules and you want to establish a low altitude
/ high speed training school? Charlie has a way to
make pilots do their assembly checks, he announces
the names of all those who didn't do it the day before.
Guess what, the next day everybody is in compliance.
We don't have any authority over our pilots, thats
the problem.
JJ

[[email protected]]

John Sinclair wrote:
> >Say, JJ, did they point you at the range and tell you,
> >'here's some 20mm and
> >some little blue bombs -- now go do what you've seen
> >in the films'? Or did
> >they give you a bunch of dual training, good briefs
> >and debriefs, and lots
> >of practice?
>
> Minimum 'foul' altitudes were established for range
> work. Before that, jocks were flying into the ground.
> Under my proposal, your minimum 'foul' altitude would
> be 500 feet.
>
> >Are we ignoring training while trying to legislate
> >safety?
>
> Come on, we can't even get the assembly check into
> the rules and you want to establish a low altitude
> / high speed training school? Charlie has a way to
> make pilots do their assembly checks, he announces
> the names of all those who didn't do it the day before.
> Guess what, the next day everybody is in compliance.
> We don't have any authority over our pilots, thats
> the problem.
> JJ

Assembly check has been very effectively enforced by many contest
organisers with the simple policy of "no signiture on the wing tape- no
tow".
As to proposal by another to require training in low finishes, I'll be
curious if he is willing to teach this school and sign off pilots. I,
for one will not be doing this. Imagine the potential liability.
We continuously do recurrent training at contests in the form of safety
talks.
Others of us also counsel pilots who are seen doing marginal finishes
in order to try to prevent accidents.
All that said, I love to do speed finishes, am sorry to see them on the
way out, but think their time has come and gone.
UH

[CV]

wrote:
> A rotating finish line would address the problem: it would be centered

Rotating finish line ??

> on a point on or near the airport, and would rotate normal to the final
> leg of the declared task (assumes the use of a steering TP for MATs).

At what rpm would it rotate ?

How would the finishing contestant know which way the
finish line is oriented at the exact moment he arrives ?

CV

[[email protected]]

So let me understand this: We get together at sanctionned contests, to
engage in a competitive activity that requires, shall we say,
aggressive flying, but are unwilling to provide proper supervised
training or evaluation of the skills necessary to safely engage in our
sport? Because we are scared of getting sued? YGTBSM!

So instead, why not eliminate all risk: Only one contestant can be
airborne at a time, minimum altitude 3000' AGL, automatic
disqualification if one lands out, and maximum speed on course limited
to the Va of the glider. Dry, of course. And on a flight plan.

Again, other risky sports seem to have no problem training, evaluating,
and certifying their participants. What's so different about glider
pilots?

I sure would like to know that the stranger that just joined me in the
prestart gaggle has a clue as to what he is doing - ditto with the guy
next to me at the end of out final glides.

Maybe it is time to gin up an alternative racing series. Heck, get
(shudder) Red Bull to sponsor it. Make it interesting, challenging,
and fun - not just another group XC around the local area. Seems like
they are trying that out in France....

And sure, if it would do any good, I would be more than happy to teach
someone everyting I know about safe low passes.

66

[CindyASK]

Okay, guys.
Go see my new thread for Avenal XC training.
Send your friends ( or not such good friends) for
their Spring training on finishes, or centering, or gate
directional awareness, or any other contesting topic.

I can take that heat.

Cindy B

[[email protected]]

Will try to focus on the issue through testosterone haze.
As an active racer and CFI for almost 30 years, I have taught countless
courses in racing to new and not so new pilots. Final glides and
finishes are an important part of this teaching.
That said, consider the scenario in which Joe Racer Newbie is trained
and performs satisfactorily in the training course under low stress and
out of the competition environment.
He is then signed off by someone as having been trained satisfactorily.

Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
spins in- fatally.
Do you not think this person who signed this pilot off as trained is
going to be at serious risk of lawsuit from wife or others?
Are you volunteering to take on this duty?
UH

[BB]

Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
spins in- fatally.
Do you not think this person who signed this pilot off as trained is
going to be at serious risk of lawsuit from wife or others?
Are you volunteering to take on this duty?
UH


And the lawyer, looking at the $1m contest liability insurance, will
surely ask the contest organizers why they chose to require a 50 foot
finish line when a 500 foot or higher finish was an available option
in the rules. All the fun arguments we have here will evaporate in
court with one crash in front of them and a long list of similar
crashes in the NTSB database.

Let us hope it won't happen, and let us hope nobody files a suit when
it does. (Keep in mind it's not just spouses and children who might
sue. Life insurance companies can sue, and pieces of glider can do a
lot of damage to unsuspecting bystanders on the ground) But if it does
happen the contest organizers are exposed to a significant liability.

BB

[Cliff Hilty]

At 13:00 05 May 2005, wrote:

consider the scenario in which Joe Racer Newbie is
trained
>and performs satisfactorily in the training course
>under low stress and
>out of the competition environment.

Geeze you have just described every training environment
know to mankind! Yet you still teach? If I felt like
you, I would never tell anyone to ever do anything
ever again. There might be liability in it. How many
flights are your students averaging before they solo?
Seriously though, ALL, teachers assume some liability
but are rewarded with seeing someone else enjoying
what we love to do! Low passes and all!

[Udo Rumpf]

"BB" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
> developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
> spins in- fatally.
> Do you not think this person who signed this pilot off as trained is
> going to be at serious risk of lawsuit from wife or others?
> Are you volunteering to take on this duty?
> UH
>
>
> And the lawyer, looking at the $1m contest liability insurance, will
> surely ask the contest organizers why they chose to require a 50 foot
> finish line when a 500 foot or higher finish was an available option
> in the rules. All the fun arguments we have here will evaporate in
> court with one crash in front of them and a long list of similar
> crashes in the NTSB database.
>
> Let us hope it won't happen, and let us hope nobody files a suit when
> it does. (Keep in mind it's not just spouses and children who might
> sue. Life insurance companies can sue, and pieces of glider can do a
> lot of damage to unsuspecting bystanders on the ground) But if it does
> happen the contest organizers are exposed to a significant liability.
>
> BB

What about the waivers I sign before I enter the contest?
Are you saying they have no standing.
Udo

[BB]

What about the waivers I sign before I enter the contest?
Are you saying they have no standing.
Udo

In a word, no. Those waivers slow down suits by about 5 minutes,
especially if they can prove some sort of negligence. Your waiver also
says nothing about contest organizer's liability to third parties. If
you crash and do damage to someone on the ground, they can sue contest
organizers, and your waiver of liability to you has nothing to do with
it. For example, consider the glider that ran into a spectator at
tonopah at takeoff. The spectator can sue the contest organizers and
the SSA.

BB

[F.L. Whiteley]

BB wrote:

> What about the waivers I sign before I enter the contest?
> Are you saying they have no standing.
> Udo
>
> In a word, no. Those waivers slow down suits by about 5 minutes,
> especially if they can prove some sort of negligence. Your waiver also
> says nothing about contest organizer's liability to third parties. If
> you crash and do damage to someone on the ground, they can sue contest
> organizers, and your waiver of liability to you has nothing to do with
> it. For example, consider the glider that ran into a spectator at
> tonopah at takeoff. The spectator can sue the contest organizers and
> the SSA.
>
> BB

My club was recently looking at 'meet' insurance as described by Costello to
cover neglience that might not be otherwise covered by our existing
policies, including premises liability coverage as we own our airfield. If
hosting a contest 'meet' insurance is available for around $800 (around
$500 if SSA sanctioned).

Frank Whiteley

[[email protected]]

Have soloed about 200 students over the years so I think I have a
pretty good idea what my personal risk threshhold is. My students solo
when they demonstrate consistency in their performance. Rarely as few
as 25 landing, most in the range of 35 to 40. Occasionally a lot more.
Difference is that they remain under supervision and continue to get
feedback.
UH

[Kilo Charlie]

UH....I know that you have spent countless hours doing your part to promote
soaring and racing but from my perspective it is a real shame that we are
not only being held hostage by the "safety" issue but now the "liability"
issue.

I actually agree with your views re the liability risk. For anyone to think
that the possibility of having to defend themselves in court as former
instructors is absurd shows lack of knowledge of what has happened in the
powered end of flying. The medical industry has long ago been witness to
the fact that consent forms (our "waivers") aren't worth the paper that they
are written on in court with only the slightest objection on the grounds of
duress at the time of signing. And there are "physicians" who will line up
to testify for plantiffs in even the most absurd cases in order to pad their
own pockets knowing full well that their opinion is counter to the standard
of care. I would bet that this occurs in the flying arena as well.

In AZ we have even had a retired attorney resign from our local club board
due to concerns that he could be held responsible for someone getting
involved in an driving accident on the way home from the airport after
drinking a beer from the keg in our clubhouse.

Having said all this though I refuse to be held hostage by the US legal
system. Now that's easy for me to say since I am not an FAA certified
instructor but would be happy to teach new racing pilots as I've done here
in AZ. To do otherwise is a slippery slope and as with the safety
arguement, the liability arguement can stop any well meaning project dead in
its tracks. It would also mean an end to racing as we know it if organizers
become increasingly concerned about the risk. What a shame it will all be.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[[email protected]]

"Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
spins in- fatally"

Funny, that's exactly my objection to the "500' at one mile" finish.
Joe Newbie blows his final glide, ends up at 450' and 60 knots at 1.1
miles, then tries to pull up over the "wire" cause he doesn't want to
pooch his finish in front of all the old heads. Hmm, low, slow,
pulling up - even if he doesn't spin he might end up with nothing left
to fly any sort of organized (read:safe) pattern.

And this is the "safer" finish JJ and others are pushing? Sorry, I
don't agree.

Here is another problem: The next day, Joe Newbie having survived his
first finish with only some minor scratches to his ego and gelcoat,
decides to really nail his finish this time. So he adds some extra
altitude in his last thermal (which involves some extra heads-down time
with his fancy new PDA), then as he is approaching the finish, he is
concentrating on his altitude (mustn't be too low), airspeed (mustn't
bee too fast), and where the line is (gee that PDA screen is hard to
see).

So what we have here is a bloody IFR finish!

Yeah, that's a BIG improvement.

OTOH, if Joe has been reminded that until he is comfortable, it is
perfectly OK to finish a bit high or to setup for a straight-in if he
is low and slow, on both days he just has to look out the window,
visually navigate across the finish line, then make the appropriate
pattern entry.

Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points of view.

66

[[email protected]]

Maybe I haven't been entirely clear on my points.
I absolutely think we should be passing on the best information we know
how to with respect to how to fly well and safely and maybe even have a
little fun along the way.
I do admit to getting my hackles up when comments get made about why
don't "you, we, whatever" teach these guys how to do low finishes right
so we can all keep doing worm burners.
The fact is those of us who teach these new pilots try to do that and
more. Even so, we still have what some think is a problem that is
easily fixed by raising the finish height.
I have called many pilots aside with friendly advice after funky
finishes. Most took my input as good advice. A few did not. Two of
those had crashes within a year of counseling which were the result of
excessively low energy patterns.
The conclusion I draw from this is that marginal energy finishes and
related accident potential will continue if we keep the low gate.
When you blow the high gate there is still enough altitude to safely do
a pattern and take the rolling finish time.
All that said, I think we pretty much agree that sharing our knowledge
makes it better for everybody.
The critical point comes when somebody is expected to sign on the line
as to competency in a low level semi aerobatic maneuver.
Thanks for sharing
UH

[Jack]

wrote:

> As to proposal by another to require training in low finishes, I'll be
> curious if he is willing to teach this school and sign off pilots. I,
> for one will not be doing this.

So how would that be any different from signing somebody off for aerotow? Or
any other maneuver? You sign them off on low-altitude rope breaks every day.

Somebody signs off those few who do glider acro shows, because they have
proven they can do it within the established bounds of safety. If somebody
from the FAA will sign off on glider acro near an airshow crowd, why can't a
well-qualified CFIG sign off for low fast finishes? Apparently some
bureaucrats know how to use the regulations to let the job get done, rather
than using "liability" fears to bolster their own pet peeves.

If the perceived liability problem can't be overcome, then we deserve what
we get -- which will be even more liability for ham-handed no-clue so-called
pilots -- right up to the day when _nobody_ gets into a glider, period.


Jack

[John Sinclair]

>Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points
>of view.

We have flown the finish cylinder for about 5 years,
now. Zero accidents,so far. I know of 5 accidents at
the finish line.
Enough said.
JJ

[[email protected]]

When I was building the Super Albatross replica I asked the well known
aeronautical engineer, Stan Hall to take a look at what I was doing and
to run the numbers on my wing attach fittings. I told Stan that I
understood that my request involved some "liability issues" and I would
understand if he refused.
Stan told me something I will never forget, he said, I always do the
very best job I know how to do and don't worry much about "liability
issues". That's it in a nutshell, you shouldn't have liability problems
if you always do a good job, the right way, the first time.

What's this got to do with soaring? Some feel that any effort to
correct known safety problems is to have the organization "held hostage
to safety and liability issues". Not true, in fact not addressing known
safety issues is the definition of "liability".
JJ


Kilo Charlie wrote:
> UH....I know that you have spent countless hours doing your part to
promote
> soaring and racing but from my perspective it is a real shame that we
are
> not only being held hostage by the "safety" issue but now the
"liability"
> issue.
>
> I actually agree with your views re the liability risk. For anyone
to think
> that the possibility of having to defend themselves in court as
former
> instructors is absurd shows lack of knowledge of what has happened in
the
> powered end of flying. The medical industry has long ago been
witness to
> the fact that consent forms (our "waivers") aren't worth the paper
that they
> are written on in court with only the slightest objection on the
grounds of
> duress at the time of signing. And there are "physicians" who will
line up
> to testify for plantiffs in even the most absurd cases in order to
pad their
> own pockets knowing full well that their opinion is counter to the
standard
> of care. I would bet that this occurs in the flying arena as well.
>
> In AZ we have even had a retired attorney resign from our local club
board
> due to concerns that he could be held responsible for someone getting

> involved in an driving accident on the way home from the airport
after
> drinking a beer from the keg in our clubhouse.
>
> Having said all this though I refuse to be held hostage by the US
legal
> system. Now that's easy for me to say since I am not an FAA
certified
> instructor but would be happy to teach new racing pilots as I've done
here
> in AZ. To do otherwise is a slippery slope and as with the safety
> arguement, the liability arguement can stop any well meaning project
dead in
> its tracks. It would also mean an end to racing as we know it if
organizers
> become increasingly concerned about the risk. What a shame it will
all be.
>
> Casey Lenox
> KC
> Phoenix

[01-- Zero One]

"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
:

> >Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points
> >of view.
>
> We have flown the finish cylinder for about 5 years,
> now. Zero accidents,so far. I know of 5 accidents at
> the finish line.
> Enough said.
> JJ

There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk
posited.

Regards,

Larry Goddard
"01" USA

[Marc Ramsey]

01-- Zero One wrote:
> There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk posited.

NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful recoveries?

[Andy Blackburn]

At 00:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>01-- Zero One wrote:
>> There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
>>that Kirk posited.
>
>NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful
>recoveries?
>

Sounds like hair-splitting to me.

9B

[Marc Ramsey]

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> At 00:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>01-- Zero One wrote:
>>
>>>There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
>>>that Kirk posited.
>>
>>NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful
>>recoveries?
>>
> Sounds like hair-splitting to me.

No Andy, it's not. I have recovered from an unintentional spin entry,
with water, at 400 to 500 feet. I know I wouldn't want to be a position
of trying to do the same at under 200 feet. We do have several recent
NTSB reports of gliders spinning in following 50 foot gate finishes.
Given that a large percentage (possibly the majority) of contests in the
past 2 years have used the allegedly dangerous finish cylinders, one
would expect to see a statistically significant number of finish
cylinder related accidents. Where are the NTSB reports?

Marc

[Andy Blackburn]

At 04:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Andy Blackburn wrote:
>> At 00:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>>01-- Zero One wrote:
>>>
>>>>There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
>>>>that Kirk posited.
>>>
>>>NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful
>>>recoveries?
>>>
>> Sounds like hair-splitting to me.
>
>No Andy, it's not. I have recovered from an unintentional
>spin entry,
>with water, at 400 to 500 feet. I know I wouldn't
>want to be a position
>of trying to do the same at under 200 feet. We do
>have several recent
>NTSB reports of gliders spinning in following 50 foot
>gate finishes.
>Given that a large percentage (possibly the majority)
>of contests in the
>past 2 years have used the allegedly dangerous finish
>cylinders, one
>would expect to see a statistically significant number
>of finish
>cylinder related accidents. Where are the NTSB reports?
>
>Marc

My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be
so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder
encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach
the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide.
The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone
got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder
for me.

9B

[Kilo Charlie]

"Marc Ramsey" > wrote in message
m...
> I have recovered from an unintentional spin entry, with water, at 400 to
> 500 feet.

So if we follow this line of logic then we should make the finish altitude a
minimum of 2000 feet to protect all of the pilots that can't manage their
energy correctly. That way we can protect them from themselves. It would
also allow the other guy that you spin into a chance to safely exit their
glider.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

[Marc Ramsey]

Andy Blackburn wrote:
> My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be
> so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder
> encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach
> the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide.
> The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone
> got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder
> for me.

Never mind, I keep forgetting to just stay out of this. I'd have a bit
more respect for your position if y'all would quit trying to convince
people its more dangerous to finish at 500 feet than at 50, but it
really doesn't matter. *I* have margin for error at 500 feet, I have
none at 50 or 100, tis adequate reason for me, clearly it isn't enough
for you, 'nuf said.

[CV]

wrote:

> "Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
> developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
> spins in- fatally"
>
> Funny, that's exactly my objection to the "500' at one mile" finish.
> Joe Newbie blows his final glide, ends up at 450' and 60 knots at 1.1
> miles, then tries to pull up over the "wire" cause he doesn't want to
> pooch his finish in front of all the old heads. Hmm, low, slow,
> pulling up - even if he doesn't spin he might end up with nothing left
> to fly any sort of organized (read:safe) pattern.
>
> And this is the "safer" finish JJ and others are pushing? Sorry, I
> don't agree.

Wouldn't he still be better off though, and stand a better chance of
recovering from a stall, or even an incipient spin if he reacts quickly
enough, at 500 ft a mile out, than off a botched-up beat up over the
field. And there won't be spectators and other activities going on
directly under him.

CV

[Fred Mueller]

A couple years back at a regional contest I listened to a daily safety
talk given by Dick Butler regarding final glides. A couple points stuck
in my head, Dick won't fly final glides in the yellow band (starts at
about 105-115 kts on most modern sailplanes) and he will accept a very
high finish to do so. He considers energy management to have been
successful (optimum) if he can fly and finish his final glide at about
85 knots. An 85 kt finish obviously precludes any type of "wormburner"
finish. My personal observation is that the very best pilots almost
never do flashy low finishes even with plenty of energy. It's the
wannabes that tend to engage in that sort of stuff and I am not without
guilt in that area but have vowed to correct my past errors. 120 knots
through the gate at 50-100 feet might be successful energy management
but it is a failure of risk management, especially at a contest.
Flying gliders and racing gliders is all about energy management and
risk management.

On the other end of the spectrum is the low energy finish and the
pressure to fit into the pattern versus a rolling finish that
potentially has you landing head on into the rest of the traffic. It is
real easy to get fixated on finishing at a certain height (i.e. a LOW
height) and flying a pattern and that is one of the ways we end up with
the funky finish. Now if you only have enough energy to plop over the
fence the decision is easy, there will be no pattern because it is so
obvious you can't do it and that is a huge failure all its own (you
should have landed miles back...). Now lets say you've arrived over the
end of the field opposite the direction of landing and you're at 400
feet and 55 knots. You have been sweating the glide for miles and to
land straight ahead into traffic you are now in a high energy situation
to get down and stopped without rolling too far into the oncoming
traffic. That's a big shift in state of mind when you've been trying to
conserve every bit of energy during your final glide. I think its
precisely this situation that has caused the most trouble recently. If
we are going to "teach" final glides we would be well served to spend a
lot of time talking about low energy glides and when and how to knock it
off and get safe.

(disclosure: A few weeks back I landed less than a mile from the
airfield when my final glide fell apart, if I had done it right I would
have landed 5 miles short of the field)

FM


wrote:
> Maybe I haven't been entirely clear on my points.
> I absolutely think we should be passing on the best information we know
> how to with respect to how to fly well and safely and maybe even have a
> little fun along the way.
> I do admit to getting my hackles up when comments get made about why
> don't "you, we, whatever" teach these guys how to do low finishes right
> so we can all keep doing worm burners.
> The fact is those of us who teach these new pilots try to do that and
> more. Even so, we still have what some think is a problem that is
> easily fixed by raising the finish height.
> I have called many pilots aside with friendly advice after funky
> finishes. Most took my input as good advice. A few did not. Two of
> those had crashes within a year of counseling which were the result of
> excessively low energy patterns.
> The conclusion I draw from this is that marginal energy finishes and
> related accident potential will continue if we keep the low gate.
> When you blow the high gate there is still enough altitude to safely do
> a pattern and take the rolling finish time.
> All that said, I think we pretty much agree that sharing our knowledge
> makes it better for everybody.
> The critical point comes when somebody is expected to sign on the line
> as to competency in a low level semi aerobatic maneuver.
> Thanks for sharing
> UH
>

[[email protected]]

Marc,

The finish line is a magnifying glass. The sins committed there are
repeated throughout the soaring day. Only difference is, everyone sees
and comments on them. The same and new errors will be made in the
finish cylinder, but out of sight of the peanut gallery. This isn't
safer; it just seems safer - a three-monkeys approach to safety. (And
yes, while you have more altitude under you, you've also increased the
likelihood and severity of collision.)

In a previous post, I pointed out how little it costs in points to opt
out of a 50-foot finish. Eight points max. On the other hand, the
cylinder represents some known problems (head-down piloting) and
unknown problems (traffic separation at the cylinder wall and
procedures after the clock stops).

Just because something "seems" safer, doesn't mean it is. And while we
blunt skulls may seem unreasonable in our commitment to the status quo,
some of us would rather deal with the risks we understand than journey
off into the unknown.

I and others have pointed out, in this and other threads, some of those
variables. I've seen mixed results in how these questions have been
addressed. One thing is certain... any finish is a high-density,
high-risk environment, and my own experience is that I spend far too
much of my time looking at instruments while approaching the cylinder
for my own comfort (and for yours). When I call four miles, I want my
head out of the cockpit 99% percent of the time. This simply isn't
realistic with the cylinder. We need to fully understand where the
benefit of lower density outweighs the effects of greater pilot
distraction. A blue day AST or TAT raises the potential density of the
finish, and thus the importance of heads up piloting.

I could be converted. But it's clear the cylinder hasn't been
adequately vetted. There's too large a penalty for rolling finishes,
which means pilots will be trying all sorts of tricks to clip the
bottom, flying at low speeds into high-speed, high-density traffic. And
there's no standardization for pattern entry based on energy after
entering the cylinder.

For instance, at the Std Class Nats in Montague I didn't begin dumping
water until after I pierced the finish cylinder. After finishing, I
would pull up to 800 feet agl, open the dumps, and wander around the
vicinity of the IP until I reached pattern altitude. After all, why
should I take the performance penalty of dumping water if I have
several minutes after the finish to lighten the glider before landing?
Multiply this by 10, introduce variables in speed, altitude, wing
loading, and pattern planning, and the IP becomes an increasingly
dangerous environment.

Where does this leave the guy who has difficulty judging whether he
ought to light the burners or break off for a rolling finish? Or a
pilot who cannot execute a brief 2-g pull and 180 degree turn to final?
How will they deal with inserting themselves into a much more dynamic
pattern with several other gliders, with lots of opportunity to raise
the level of confusion?

The cylinder has its uses, especially for open-ended MATs where racing
is likely to take place in all four quadrants, but there's much
homework yet to be done. Yes, you remove one highly visible maneuver -
one the vast the majority of pilots can safely and successfully execute
and introuduce a fistfull of unknowns that will affect everyone. Don't
like the finish line? Can't judge energy? Can't execute the manuever?
Don't light the burners. Why must I be exposed to what I believe is a
potentially dangerous environment without choice because a handful of
pilots are promulgating a "solution" that hasn't yet received due
diligence (amply demonstrated by its proponents' inability to
adequately address well-reasoned safety concerns)?

I suppose the thing that irks me is not so much that this is a "lowest
common denominator" solution, rather that it will have very little
impact on safety. We'll improve things for a few pilots, yet expose all
pilots to other safety concerns. And while we've netted a few hundred
feet of cushion beneath those pilots who need it, that doesn't improve
their ability to stay out of trouble elsewhere on course. It simply
defers ignorance out of sight of the home drome.

By the way, when was the last time you saw someone thermalling half a
mile from the finish line? Or intentionally busting a gaggle at 140
knots? These aren't unreasonable scenarios and require only the same
lack of judgement displayed by pilots who can't navigate a finish line.
Remember the start gate? Thermalling wasn't allowed. Why? Doesn't the
finish cylinder raise exactly the same concerns? So why wasn't this
addressed? Why aren't YOU asking these questions? After all, your bent
is toward making the sport safer, right?

Safety is my primary concern. Which is to say, if I believed the
cylinder was inherently safer, I'd be writing in equal volume in favor.
But it's clearly not the cure-all some propose. At best, not yet.

OC

[[email protected]]

Other skill sports require certification before you can participate as
a contestant. Showing up at a racetrack with a formula "anything" won't
get you a start position.

SSA sanctioned sailplane racing also has some gatekeeping. Perhaps we
need to discuss whether a Silver C is an adequate prerequisite to race.

[John Sinclair]

>There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
>that Kirk
>posited.

Please provide us with the details of these finish
cylinder accidents. I'm not aware of any.
JJ

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Fred Mueller > wrote:

> Now lets say you've arrived over the
> end of the field opposite the direction of landing and you're at 400
> feet and 55 knots. You have been sweating the glide for miles and to
> land straight ahead into traffic you are now in a high energy situation
> to get down and stopped without rolling too far into the oncoming
> traffic.

Going downwind at 400 ft at the departure end of the field?

That's 200 ft higher and a 180 degree turn better off than the rope
breaks that we routinely expect pre-solo pilots to cope with!

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[01-- Zero One]

JJ,

I am going to respond privately to you with specifics. I apologize to
the group for 'teasing' you with a statement and then refusing to reveal
the information that proves it.

Larry





"John Sinclair" > wrote in message
:

> >There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
> >that Kirk
> >posited.
>
> Please provide us with the details of these finish
> cylinder accidents. I'm not aware of any.
> JJ

[Jack]

01-- Zero One wrote:

> I am going to respond privately to you with specifics. I apologize to
> the group for 'teasing' you with a statement and then refusing to reveal
> the information that proves it.

Of course you will sanitize them and then let the heathen feast on them too,
I suppose?


Jack

[Andy Blackburn]

At 05:30 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>Andy Blackburn wrote:
>> My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be
>> so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder
>> encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach
>> the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide.
>> The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone
>> got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder
>> for me.
>
>Never mind, I keep forgetting to just stay out of this.
> I'd have a bit
>more respect for your position if y'all would quit
>trying to convince
>people its more dangerous to finish at 500 feet than
>at 50, but it
>really doesn't matter. *I* have margin for error at
>500 feet, I have
>none at 50 or 100, tis adequate reason for me, clearly
>it isn't enough
>for you, 'nuf said.

I do wish we could talk about this without the ad hominem
commentary.

I never said the you have more energy at 50 feet than
500'/1sm. I believe I pointed out long ago that 500'
and 1sm at 60kts is the equivalent in energy of 50'
over the airport and 100 kts for most modern sailplanes
or +/-350' over the airport at best glide. It's a difference
in energy to be sure. Everyone stipulated to that point
long ago.

The argument is about the more subtle points regarding
decision making, heads-down piloting and traffic management.
The cylindre proponents seem to deny ANY issues with
the cyliner and come back to altitude as the ONLY safety
factor on final glides and therefore conclude that
the cylinder must be HANDS DOWN TOTALLY SAFE. Some
of us would like to point out that it is more complex
than that.

I have never stated that the cylinder is less safe
than the gate - rather that the biggest threat to safety
is simplistic arguments that lead to flat assertions.

9B

[Fred Mueller]

From an energy standpoint there is no problem at least not a low energy
problem, there is now a high energy problem. Imagine yourself at 400
feet on the downwind threshold. Where are you going to land on that
runway? Now imagine a half dozen or more gliders coming at you landing
from the opposite direction and some of those gliders intend to land
long. If there are few or no other gliders in the pattern there is no
problem. At a contest with 50-75 gliders all finishing within a very
short period of time, the problem is very real.

FM

Bruce Hoult wrote:
> In article >,
> Fred Mueller > wrote:
>
>
>>Now lets say you've arrived over the
>>end of the field opposite the direction of landing and you're at 400
>>feet and 55 knots. You have been sweating the glide for miles and to
>>land straight ahead into traffic you are now in a high energy situation
>>to get down and stopped without rolling too far into the oncoming
>>traffic.
>
>
> Going downwind at 400 ft at the departure end of the field?
>
> That's 200 ft higher and a 180 degree turn better off than the rope
> breaks that we routinely expect pre-solo pilots to cope with!
>

[Marc Ramsey]

wrote:
> The finish line is a magnifying glass. The sins committed there are
> repeated throughout the soaring day. Only difference is, everyone sees
> and comments on them. The same and new errors will be made in the
> finish cylinder, but out of sight of the peanut gallery. This isn't
> safer; it just seems safer - a three-monkeys approach to safety. (And
> yes, while you have more altitude under you, you've also increased the
> likelihood and severity of collision.)

There are differences, I like having altitude under me, I like having
the time to go through my checklist, then make a proper pattern after
the finish. It is my belief that the likelihood of collision is greater
with a finish gate, particularly when people are having to "hook" the gate.

> In a previous post, I pointed out how little it costs in points to opt
> out of a 50-foot finish. Eight points max.

I don't care enough about winning to worry about a few points here and
there, so yes, I almost always go through finish gates at 500 to 1000
feet. Of course, I've finished second in two regionals in the past 3
years, by 1 and 35 points (but both used cylinders).

> On the other hand, the
> cylinder represents some known problems (head-down piloting) and
> unknown problems (traffic separation at the cylinder wall and
> procedures after the clock stops).

This will sound a bit snarky, but perhaps you need to adjust/practice
your finish cylinder technique. I don't find any more need to fly head
down than I do with a gate. Every contest that I've flown centered the
cylinder on an easily visible landmark. I set my glide software to
arrive one mile out at the desired altitude (I personally set it to
arrive at 500 feet above the floor), fly straight at the landmark, and
glance at the computer once in a while to make sure I'm still above
glide slope. My software beeps when I cross the cylinder, doesn't yours?

Traffic issues at the cylinder wall are, in my mind, not much different
than a gate, except there is a lot more time to shift gears and sequence
for landing.

> Just because something "seems" safer, doesn't mean it is. And while we
> blunt skulls may seem unreasonable in our commitment to the status quo,
> some of us would rather deal with the risks we understand than journey
> off into the unknown.

You are taking a legacy finishing procedure, clearly optimal for the
optical timing techniques used in the past, and trying to force it into
the GPS age. Sometimes the status quo needs to be shaken up a bit.
And, there are now quite a few of us new guys around who have little
experience with finish gates, and don't much like them.

> I and others have pointed out, in this and other threads, some of those
> variables. I've seen mixed results in how these questions have been
> addressed. One thing is certain... any finish is a high-density,
> high-risk environment, and my own experience is that I spend far too
> much of my time looking at instruments while approaching the cylinder
> for my own comfort (and for yours). When I call four miles, I want my
> head out of the cockpit 99% percent of the time. This simply isn't
> realistic with the cylinder. We need to fully understand where the
> benefit of lower density outweighs the effects of greater pilot
> distraction. A blue day AST or TAT raises the potential density of the
> finish, and thus the importance of heads up piloting.

My answer to this is "bull". I'm not distracted and I don't have my
head down. I thought it important to work out a finish strategy that
gives me maximum heads-up time. I've even gone so far as to modify my
glide software to provide audio indication that my final glide is
trending above/below the desired slope. Perhaps you should insist that
your software vendor do the same.

> I could be converted. But it's clear the cylinder hasn't been
> adequately vetted.

The finish gate was vetted for use in optically timed environments. We
no longer do that.

> There's too large a penalty for rolling finishes,

I agree, that needs to be worked on.

> which means pilots will be trying all sorts of tricks to clip the
> bottom, flying at low speeds into high-speed, high-density traffic.

I think we can agree that stupid pilots will do stupid things,
independent of the rules.

> And
> there's no standardization for pattern entry based on energy after
> entering the cylinder.

Most of us have years of experience trying to figure out how to land
with other aircraft milling around in the vicinity. We use a 2 mile
1000 foot cylinder at Minden, precisely because finishing gliders must
integrate with non-contest traffic, including fire bombers, jets, and
student glider pilots. We have not had a single problem with this.

> For instance, at the Std Class Nats in Montague I didn't begin dumping
> water until after I pierced the finish cylinder. After finishing, I
> would pull up to 800 feet agl, open the dumps, and wander around the
> vicinity of the IP until I reached pattern altitude. After all, why
> should I take the performance penalty of dumping water if I have
> several minutes after the finish to lighten the glider before landing?
> Multiply this by 10, introduce variables in speed, altitude, wing
> loading, and pattern planning, and the IP becomes an increasingly
> dangerous environment.

This is silly. I pull the dump handle when I make my four mile call,
using a gate or cylinder. One experience landing with partially dumped
water was enough to convince me that I needed to be consistent about this.

> Where does this leave the guy who has difficulty judging whether he
> ought to light the burners or break off for a rolling finish? Or a
> pilot who cannot execute a brief 2-g pull and 180 degree turn to final?
> How will they deal with inserting themselves into a much more dynamic
> pattern with several other gliders, with lots of opportunity to raise
> the level of confusion?

The guy will learn the same way a lot of us did, by trial and error,
plus admonishments and suggestions from the more experienced. As for
the brief 2-G pull and 180 degree turn, it is no problem when it works,
it is only a problem when there are distractions or impairments in play.
At 500 feet, I can screw up, and still have a decent chance of
recovering in time to land in one piece. At 100 feet, I'm likely to do
the lawn dart act.

> Safety is my primary concern. Which is to say, if I believed the
> cylinder was inherently safer, I'd be writing in equal volume in favor.
> But it's clearly not the cure-all some propose. At best, not yet.

We can agree to disagree on this. Frankly, I think you finish gate
advocates have already lost the argument, you just don't know it yet...

[[email protected]]

Well Marc, you, at least, win points for a well-reasoned response. I
appreciate it. And we'll continue to disagree I suspect... The most
important unanswered question in my book is the huge discrepency in
speed we see at the cylinder wall and not at the finish line. One
advantage of having been at this a few years is I recognize how much
this smacks of the old start gate and the very real dangers is
presented. I've seen far more close calls and accidents in the start
gate than at the finish line, the result of the large differences in
speeds among starters all trying to cross a line at or just below 5,000
feet agl. Go back and look at my model of the finish cylinder.

http://users.adelphia.net/~cocallag

Traffic is all arriving in a shallow arc at about the same altitude
with as much as a 100 knot delta in speeds. Even more if gliders stop
to thermal near the cylinder. This simply does not happen at the finish
line.

[[email protected]]

wrote:
> Marc,
>
> The finish line is a magnifying glass. The sins committed there are
> repeated throughout the soaring day. Only difference is, everyone
sees
> and comments on them. The same and new errors will be made in the
> finish cylinder, but out of sight of the peanut gallery. This isn't
> safer; it just seems safer - a three-monkeys approach to safety. (And
> yes, while you have more altitude under you, you've also increased
the
> likelihood and severity of collision.)
>
> In a previous post, I pointed out how little it costs in points to
opt
> out of a 50-foot finish. Eight points max. On the other hand, the
> cylinder represents some known problems (head-down piloting) and
> unknown problems (traffic separation at the cylinder wall and
> procedures after the clock stops).
>
> Just because something "seems" safer, doesn't mean it is. And while
we
> blunt skulls may seem unreasonable in our commitment to the status
quo,
> some of us would rather deal with the risks we understand than
journey
> off into the unknown.
>
> I and others have pointed out, in this and other threads, some of
those
> variables. I've seen mixed results in how these questions have been
> addressed. One thing is certain... any finish is a high-density,
> high-risk environment, and my own experience is that I spend far too
> much of my time looking at instruments while approaching the cylinder
> for my own comfort (and for yours). When I call four miles, I want my
> head out of the cockpit 99% percent of the time. This simply isn't
> realistic with the cylinder. We need to fully understand where the
> benefit of lower density outweighs the effects of greater pilot
> distraction. A blue day AST or TAT raises the potential density of
the
> finish, and thus the importance of heads up piloting.
>
> I could be converted. But it's clear the cylinder hasn't been
> adequately vetted. There's too large a penalty for rolling finishes,
> which means pilots will be trying all sorts of tricks to clip the
> bottom, flying at low speeds into high-speed, high-density traffic.
And
> there's no standardization for pattern entry based on energy after
> entering the cylinder.
>
> For instance, at the Std Class Nats in Montague I didn't begin
dumping
> water until after I pierced the finish cylinder. After finishing, I
> would pull up to 800 feet agl, open the dumps, and wander around the
> vicinity of the IP until I reached pattern altitude. After all, why
> should I take the performance penalty of dumping water if I have
> several minutes after the finish to lighten the glider before
landing?
> Multiply this by 10, introduce variables in speed, altitude, wing
> loading, and pattern planning, and the IP becomes an increasingly
> dangerous environment.
>
> Where does this leave the guy who has difficulty judging whether he
> ought to light the burners or break off for a rolling finish? Or a
> pilot who cannot execute a brief 2-g pull and 180 degree turn to
final?
> How will they deal with inserting themselves into a much more dynamic
> pattern with several other gliders, with lots of opportunity to raise
> the level of confusion?
>
> The cylinder has its uses, especially for open-ended MATs where
racing
> is likely to take place in all four quadrants, but there's much
> homework yet to be done. Yes, you remove one highly visible maneuver
-
> one the vast the majority of pilots can safely and successfully
execute
> and introuduce a fistfull of unknowns that will affect everyone.
Don't
> like the finish line? Can't judge energy? Can't execute the manuever?
> Don't light the burners. Why must I be exposed to what I believe is a
> potentially dangerous environment without choice because a handful of
> pilots are promulgating a "solution" that hasn't yet received due
> diligence (amply demonstrated by its proponents' inability to
> adequately address well-reasoned safety concerns)?
>
> I suppose the thing that irks me is not so much that this is a
"lowest
> common denominator" solution, rather that it will have very little
> impact on safety. We'll improve things for a few pilots, yet expose
all
> pilots to other safety concerns. And while we've netted a few hundred
> feet of cushion beneath those pilots who need it, that doesn't
improve
> their ability to stay out of trouble elsewhere on course. It simply
> defers ignorance out of sight of the home drome.
>
> By the way, when was the last time you saw someone thermalling half a
> mile from the finish line? Or intentionally busting a gaggle at 140
> knots? These aren't unreasonable scenarios and require only the same
> lack of judgement displayed by pilots who can't navigate a finish
line.
> Remember the start gate? Thermalling wasn't allowed. Why? Doesn't the
> finish cylinder raise exactly the same concerns? So why wasn't this
> addressed? Why aren't YOU asking these questions? After all, your
bent
> is toward making the sport safer, right?
>
> Safety is my primary concern. Which is to say, if I believed the
> cylinder was inherently safer, I'd be writing in equal volume in
favor.
> But it's clearly not the cure-all some propose. At best, not yet.
>
> OC

[John Sinclair]

>Traffic is all arriving in a shallow arc at about the
>same altitude
>with as much as a 100 knot delta in speeds. Even more
>if gliders stop
>to thermal near the cylinder. This simply does not
>happen at the finish
>line.

Oh yeah? I was driving hard for the finish line at
Ephrata, 1/2 mile out, 500 feet and 145 knots when
I almost nailed a PW-5 at 500 feet doing an estimated
60 knots. All happened so fast I had no time to react.
Luckily I went just over him. Another gooood reason
to employ the finish cylinder, especially with sports
class machines in the contest.
JJ

[Z Goudie]

At 21:00 06 May 2005, John Sinclair wrote:

>Oh yeah? I was driving hard for the finish line at
>Ephrata, 1/2 mile out, 500 feet and 145 knots when
>I almost nailed a PW-5 at 500 feet doing an estimated
>60 knots. All happened so fast I had no time to react.
>Luckily I went just over him. Another gooood reason
>to employ the finish cylinder, especially with sports
>class machines in the contest.

Wow! Got your final glide calculations that badly
wrong?

[Don Johnstone]

At 05:00 06 May 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>
>My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be
>so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder
>encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach
>the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide.
>The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone
>got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder
>for me.
>
>9B



The answer to that problem is simple, it's the start
scenario in reverse. Any pilot flying below the minimum
finish height is recorded as a landout at that point.
There is now absolutely no point in pulling up to 500ft.
>
>
>
>

[[email protected]]

The funny thing is that a reasonable compromise may be just to have a
finish cylinder, but no finish altitude - but you have to land at the
home field to get speed points. 1 mile, 2 miles, makes no difference,
you have to have the energy to make it home. More than 2 miles
(actually, probably more than 1 mile) and some guys would try to
thermal up after finishing, so that would have to be addressed somehow
(no thermalling in the finish cylinder?). Otherwise, fly what you
think is the optimum final glide and make it work. Simple. Perhaps.

This way the JJs and newbies could finish at their desired 500' (or
more), and proceed liesurely to the pattern, while us crazed maniacs
could risk life and limb to shine our a**es for the crowd of adoring
groupies via spectacular beat-ups. Got to find some use for those big
contest numbers under the wing that cost so much.

Heck, JJ, we'll probably kill ourselves off pretty quickly (along with
assorted burning worms) so your problem will be solved!

Oh, and with regards to Dick Butler's comment on slow final glides -
doesn't he fly an extended-wing ASW-22? (The ETA-biter?) That would
tend to make you fly a slow final glide, wouldn't it. Of course, it's
probably on final glide when it starts....

Great conversation, all in all.

[[email protected]]

When I went to Tonopah several years back, I noticed that Death Valley
was on the turnpoint list. I saw an oppotunity for diamond altitude in
thermal... but even better, I really enjoyed the notion that you could
have a save below sea level and some 6000 feet below the home drome.
Never got the chance, thankfully, to sample DV, but it was an
interesting notion. I'd still like to log an "underwater" save.

[Bruce Hoult]

In article >,
Fred Mueller > wrote:

> Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Fred Mueller > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Now lets say you've arrived over the
> >>end of the field opposite the direction of landing and you're at 400
> >>feet and 55 knots. You have been sweating the glide for miles and to
> >>land straight ahead into traffic you are now in a high energy situation
> >>to get down and stopped without rolling too far into the oncoming
> >>traffic.
> >
> >
> > Going downwind at 400 ft at the departure end of the field?
> >
> > That's 200 ft higher and a 180 degree turn better off than the rope
> > breaks that we routinely expect pre-solo pilots to cope with!
>
> From an energy standpoint there is no problem at least not a low energy
> problem, there is now a high energy problem. Imagine yourself at 400
> feet on the downwind threshold. Where are you going to land on that
> runway? Now imagine a half dozen or more gliders coming at you landing
> from the opposite direction and some of those gliders intend to land
> long.

Why on earth would you land downwind from such a position?

Angle off to the pattern side of the runway a little, fly downwind until
you get to 200 ft (more than 2 km unless there is sink) or the end of
the runway, do a 180 and land with the other traffic.

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[Bob Korves]

Sergio Colacevich (C2) made a remote start out of Soar Truckee at
Bridgeport, Ca (~80 nm away!), flew to Death Valley, spoilered down to 1200'
msl (!) thermalled away, went to 17,900' on the White mountains, and
returned for a landing at Bridgeport.

All 3 diamonds in one flight, without wave, and without exceeding 18,000',
from a departure airport at 5,900 msl. I was the official observer.

That save was 4,700' "underwater".
-Bob Korves

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> When I went to Tonopah several years back, I noticed that Death Valley
> was on the turnpoint list. I saw an oppotunity for diamond altitude in
> thermal... but even better, I really enjoyed the notion that you could
> have a save below sea level and some 6000 feet below the home drome.
> Never got the chance, thankfully, to sample DV, but it was an
> interesting notion. I'd still like to log an "underwater" save.
>

[[email protected]]

> Wow! Got your final glide calculations that badly
> wrong?

Not really, ideally I would have reached redline just before crossing
the finish line, but Ephrata had a particularly ugly set-up. The finish
line was located in the middle of the ramp, so after finishing one was
forced to make an emmediate climbing 180 turn and fly 1/2 mile back to
set-up for a landing on the ramp. That day I believe I crossed the line
at about 100 feet and 145 knots. Needed every bit of that energy too,
in order to make it back to the entry point for landing. The PW-5 was
flying slow because he needed to conserve everything he had in order to
do the same thing.

Thankfully, Ephrata saw the light and went with the 500 foot-1 mile
cylinder the next year. Made everything sooooo much easier, just
pull-up, slow-up, turn down-wind for the ramp. Make a radio call if you
saw others near by. The difference in anxiety level was like day and
night and I was able to save all that testosterone for the bedroom.
;>) JJ

[Bob Korves]

Actually, in thinking about it I have done about 5-10 "underwater" (if
underwater can be defined as below takeoff) saves. It is not that unusual
when flying out of a 5,900 msl airport (Truckee) with lower terrain nearby.
None like Sergio's 4,700' though!
-Bob Korves

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> When I went to Tonopah several years back, I noticed that Death Valley
> was on the turnpoint list. I saw an oppotunity for diamond altitude in
> thermal... but even better, I really enjoyed the notion that you could
> have a save below sea level and some 6000 feet below the home drome.
> Never got the chance, thankfully, to sample DV, but it was an
> interesting notion. I'd still like to log an "underwater" save.
>

[Bruce Hoult]

In article . com>,
wrote:

> Thankfully, Ephrata saw the light and went with the 500 foot-1 mile
> cylinder the next year. Made everything sooooo much easier, just
> pull-up, slow-up, turn down-wind for the ramp. Make a radio call if you
> saw others near by. The difference in anxiety level was like day and
> night and I was able to save all that testosterone for the bedroom.

Um.

Isn't it the others nearby that you *didn't* see that the radio call is
for?

--
Bruce | 41.1670S | \ spoken | -+-
Hoult | 174.8263E | /\ here. | ----------O----------

[5Z]

John Sinclair wrote:
> Oh yeah? I was driving hard for the finish line at
> Ephrata, 1/2 mile out, 500 feet and 145 knots when
> I almost nailed a PW-5 at 500 feet doing an estimated
> 60 knots. All happened so fast I had no time to react.
> Luckily I went just over him. Another gooood reason
> to employ the finish cylinder, especially with sports
> class machines in the contest.

This exact same situation will happen with the cylinder...

You have a conservative glide for 500' + margin at the edge of the
cylinder while flying your Lingus III. For the last 20 miles you've
been flying in lift streets, so at 3-4 miles out from the edge, you
have Mc set to 9.9 and still high. The Guy in the Bowlus is putting
along at max L/D and aiming for 500' + some margin as well. Somewhere
out there, you'll be passing him like he's going backwards. Granted,
the collision will be a bit higher, so maybe there will be time to bail
out safely.

-Tom

[Andy Blackburn]

At 00:30 07 May 2005, wrote:
The difference in anxiety level was like day and
>night and I was able to save all that testosterone
>for the bedroom.
>;>) JJ
>

Too much information JJ - you're not going to do one
of your accident reports on that are you?

;-)

[Fred Mueller]

I rest my case.

Bruce Hoult wrote:
<snip>
>
> Why on earth would you land downwind from such a position?
>
> Angle off to the pattern side of the runway a little, fly downwind until
> you get to 200 ft (more than 2 km unless there is sink) or the end of
> the runway, do a 180 and land with the other traffic.
>

[John Sinclair]

>Isn't it the others nearby that you *didn't* see that
>the radio call is
>for?

No, Bruce.
In a contest normal radio calls are suspended and only
conflicts are called out. ie, JJ's on down-wind, I'm
#3, got the guy turning final, etc. We should all be
aware of those present in the area because we made
the 4 mile call and the JJ's in the gate, call.
JJ

[John Sinclair]

At 01:00 07 May 2005, 5z wrote:
>
>John Sinclair wrote:
>> Oh yeah? I was driving hard for the finish line at
>> Ephrata, 1/2 mile out, 500 feet and 145 knots when
>> I almost nailed a PW-5 at 500 feet doing an estimated
>> 60 knots. All happened so fast I had no time to react.
>> Luckily I went just over him. Another gooood reason
>> to employ the finish cylinder, especially with sports
>> class machines in the contest.
>
>This exact same situation will happen with the cylinder...
>
>You have a conservative glide for 500' + margin at
>the edge of the
>cylinder while flying your Lingus III. For the last
>20 miles you've
>been flying in lift streets, so at 3-4 miles out from
>the edge, you
>have Mc set to 9.9 and still high. The Guy in the
>Bowlus is putting
>along at max L/D and aiming for 500' + some margin
>as well. Somewhere
>out there, you'll be passing him like he's going backwards.
> Granted,
>the collision will be a bit higher, so maybe there
>will be time to bail
>out safely.
>
>-Tom

Tom, I was responding to OC's statement that this situation
will never happen in the finish line, so I gave an
example of it happening. Sure it can happen in both
gates.
JJ

[[email protected]]

> This way the JJs and newbies could finish at their desired 500' (or
> more), and proceed liesurely to the pattern, while us crazed maniacs
> could risk life and limb to shine our a**es for the crowd of adoring
> groupies via spectacular beat-ups.

> Heck, JJ, we'll probably kill ourselves off pretty quickly (along
with
> assorted burning worms) so your problem will be solved!

Do I hear a knucke-draggin' Neanderthal outside the cave? Wanten' to
know if old JJ can come out and play? You're a figher jock, Kirt, tell
me something; Would you rather drive over the target and drop an irom
bomb on it or toss a GPS guided hummer at it?

I for one, have had enough of that "drivin'-over-the-target" business
and I'm happy we can now accomplish the same mission by simply dialing
in the GPS coordinates and fling that clever little thing at the target
from a mile away.
;>) JJ

[Peter Deane]

JJ you've definitely lost your Mojo . Old age and wrinkles
have clearly diluted your testosterone to a mere wisp
of their former glory..

As I see it, gate finishes (done properly) are terrific
fun.

Cylinder finishes are a relatively tedious 'non-event'
by comparison. How could anything so BORING be dangerous?


But, for every 'uneventful fun' gate finish I've also
had a 'glad we finished at 500' today' experience in/near
the pattern, especially on large airfields with only
1 runway option with a large fleet.

Which brings me to my point; a safe finish is done
in the context of the site and the weather and the
traffic situation. Some sites and events are MUCH safer
with a cylinder finish. I dont think many sites are
inherently very safe for gate finishes, except those
like Avenal which tend to run downwind finishes with
a pullup & 180 to final. (which I confess i really
enjoy). Here, safety is aided by thoughtful task planning.
Antics like 'hooking the gate' are absurd; POST type
tasks definitely call out for a cylinder finish unless
a steering turnpoint is used.

I think its undeniable that cylinder finishes are (in
general) safer than low gate finishes. Its possible
to kill yourself in almost any situation but using
that as an argument against change doesnt really cut
it. I like both finish types. But the older I get,
the more precious my hide becomes.

Just my 2 cents; trying to stay out of a life or death
struggle to determine who is right.

Kind Regards

Peter Deane (2T)


At 13:30 07 May 2005, wrote:
>
>
>> This way the JJs and newbies could finish at their
>>desired 500' (or
>> more), and proceed liesurely to the pattern, while
>>us crazed maniacs
>> could risk life and limb to shine our a**es for the
>>crowd of adoring
>> groupies via spectacular beat-ups.
>
>> Heck, JJ, we'll probably kill ourselves off pretty
>>quickly (along
>with
>> assorted burning worms) so your problem will be solved!
>
>Do I hear a knucke-draggin' Neanderthal outside the
>cave? Wanten' to
>know if old JJ can come out and play? You're a figher
>jock, Kirt, tell
>me something; Would you rather drive over the target
>and drop an irom
>bomb on it or toss a GPS guided hummer at it?
>
>I for one, have had enough of that 'drivin'-over-the-target'
>business
>and I'm happy we can now accomplish the same mission
>by simply dialing
>in the GPS coordinates and fling that clever little
>thing at the target
>from a mile away.
>;>) JJ
>
>

[[email protected]]

Peter Deane wrote:
> JJ you've definitely lost your Mojo . Old age and wrinkles
> have clearly diluted your testosterone to a mere wisp
> of their former glory..

Hi Peter,
Just had a physical, Doc played with the family jewels, got the finger
wave, everything checked out OK.
During our little chat, with me sitting naked on the exam taple, Doc
said, You haven't been in for 5 years, so why now?

I need another prescription for Viagra.

He handed me 2 free samples and said, see you in 5 years.

;>) JJ

[Peter Deane]

Hi JJ;

Well look on the bright side; at least you wont roll
out of bed so often :-)

>
>I need another prescription for Viagra.
>
>He handed me 2 free samples and said, see you in 5
>years.
>
>;>) JJ
>
>

[[email protected]]

JJ, you've got the wrong comparison!

Would you rather bring your four-ship down initial and pitch out into a
nice tight pattern, rolling out of your final turn just as you touch
down, where everybody can see it and appreciate the beauty of it, or
skulk back via an ASLAR, dragging your wingmen and creeping in the last
ten miles with the gear down at 170 knots. Yeah, that's manly!

Racing is about fun, dropping HE is a job - and I'm all for giving
every swinging richard a load of GBU-38s and a long list of very
special coordinates and turning them loose.

Just remember to keep the targeting pod on the impact point so you can
get some good CNN video...

Kirk (that's with 2 K's)

[[email protected]]

Morning Kirk (with 2 K's)
When I was a staff puke at Langley (DOE) we worked a proposal to stop
doing the overhead, pitch-out pattern because of safety considerations.
The conclusion was it should be retained because it was the fastest way
to get 4 ships back on the ground. It's also very enjoyable to watch.

The finish gate is very enjoyable to watch, but whers the need? Why, we
don't even have a guy down there with a stop watch any more. It's all
for show.

We've beat this thing to death, lets go fly,
JJ (with 2 J's)

wrote:
> JJ, you've got the wrong comparison!
>
> Would you rather bring your four-ship down initial and pitch out into
a
> nice tight pattern, rolling out of your final turn just as you touch
> down, where everybody can see it and appreciate the beauty of it, or
> skulk back via an ASLAR, dragging your wingmen and creeping in the
last
> ten miles with the gear down at 170 knots. Yeah, that's manly!
>
> Racing is about fun, dropping HE is a job - and I'm all for giving
> every swinging richard a load of GBU-38s and a long list of very
> special coordinates and turning them loose.
>
> Just remember to keep the targeting pod on the impact point so you
can
> get some good CNN video...
>
> Kirk (that's with 2 K's)

[Andy Blackburn]

At 14:00 09 May 2005, wrote:
>
>Morning Kirk (with 2 K's)
>When I was a staff puke at Langley (DOE) we worked
> a proposal to stop
>doing the overhead, pitch-out pattern because of safety
>considerations.
>The conclusion was it should be retained because it
>was the fastest way
>to get 4 ships back on the ground. It's also very enjoyable
>to watch.
>

Made a career out of taking the fun out eh JJ? ;-)

I think someone said the gate is more efficient at
getting gliders on the ground because of more obvious
sequencing. Guess the Air Force proved it for us.

Can't fly my desk so I'll rattle JJ's cage one more
time...

See you at the cylinder!

9B

[John Sinclair]

Mornin' Andy,

>See you at the cylinder!

I'm not doin' no cylinders, ther're dangerous. I'm
going to finish at 5000 feet, fly home and mail in
my disk.

7V and I logged 300 miles in the Mendacinos last Wednesday,
Weaverville and back out of Williams.

You going to Avenal?
JJ

[[email protected]]

You got it, good buddy, let's go aviate!

Outside, Cu's everywhere. Unfortunately, the sims I fly all seem to
have bad inversions in them.

Kirk

(The need, by the way, is to lift the soul!)

[Frank Whiteley]

F.L. Whiteley wrote:
> BB wrote:
>
> > What about the waivers I sign before I enter the contest?
> > Are you saying they have no standing.
> > Udo
> >
> > In a word, no. Those waivers slow down suits by about 5 minutes,
> > especially if they can prove some sort of negligence. Your waiver
also
> > says nothing about contest organizer's liability to third parties.
If
> > you crash and do damage to someone on the ground, they can sue
contest
> > organizers, and your waiver of liability to you has nothing to do
with
> > it. For example, consider the glider that ran into a spectator at
> > tonopah at takeoff. The spectator can sue the contest organizers
and
> > the SSA.
> >
> > BB
>
> My club was recently looking at 'meet' insurance as described by
Costello to
> cover neglience that might not be otherwise covered by our existing
> policies, including premises liability coverage as we own our
airfield. If
> hosting a contest 'meet' insurance is available for around $800
(around
> $500 if SSA sanctioned).
>
> Frank Whiteley

Actually, it turned out that our premises liability coverage
specifically excluded 'meet' coverage. Hence the 'meet' insurance
coverage requirement if a contest is held. Camps are okay, or so we're
lead to believe.

Frank Whiteley