Contest Safety

[birddog bob]

Why don't people in SRA and SSA get the message about contest safety?
A unnecessary loss of life because the FINISH GATE was used and not a
FINISH CYLINDER.

Charlie Spratt and the top racing pilots want the finish gate at
contests because it is so exciting! All the near misses in the pull
ups and congestion in the pattern along with rolling finishes with
landings opposite to the normal landing pattern!

Well contest organizers be ware, when the CD decides to use a start
cylinder procedure or change the task completely in the air or use the
finish gate, he makes you respondsible for the consequences! Last year
the NSF fought against the SSA attempt to force us into using a CD we
didn't agree with and lost. We are relieved that we are no longer put
in the position of being respondsible for the dictates of a CD we
believe places us in jeprody.

For those of you that like the thrill of the close calls in
competition, may luck be with you and may you all survive and not cause
the injury or loss of anothers life!

[Bob Fidler]

I agree.

What has surprised me most is that an announcement was made at a fairly
recent contest ( Sports Nats Lubbock 2002) that the SSA had directed him
(The CD) to use a FINISH CYLINDER in the interest of safety. I agreed.
However, since that contest it seems the SSA's support of that policy seems
to have floated away with the wind and the SSA no longer is requesting the
CD to use a FINISH CYLINDER . The geezer glide is a fine example of how
dangerous a Finish Gate can be. I have been on the ground unrigging my
glider with guys wizzing over the field from all directions. Also, that
contest is generally flown with short tasks and a lot of gliders finishing
within a few minutes. This years results two destoyed gliders and a miracle
no one was killed.

Frankly, I will probably not compete in a contest that uses a Finish Gate.
They are just plain dangerous.

Bob, we miss you and JoAnn. Many of us appreciate your dedication to the
sport of soaring

Bob Fidler
F1

"birddog bob" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Why don't people in SRA and SSA get the message about contest safety?
> A unnecessary loss of life because the FINISH GATE was used and not a
> FINISH CYLINDER.
>
> Charlie Spratt and the top racing pilots want the finish gate at
> contests because it is so exciting! All the near misses in the pull
> ups and congestion in the pattern along with rolling finishes with
> landings opposite to the normal landing pattern!
>
> Well contest organizers be ware, when the CD decides to use a start
> cylinder procedure or change the task completely in the air or use the
> finish gate, he makes you respondsible for the consequences! Last year
> the NSF fought against the SSA attempt to force us into using a CD we
> didn't agree with and lost. We are relieved that we are no longer put
> in the position of being respondsible for the dictates of a CD we
> believe places us in jeprody.
>
> For those of you that like the thrill of the close calls in
> competition, may luck be with you and may you all survive and not cause
> the injury or loss of anothers life!
>

[Stewart Kissel]

A.) If people are looking for excitement of this type...go
to a demolition derby.

B.) Those pilots who feel this is their privilege
to do...are hurting the rest of the sport when avoidable
accidents occur. The entire sport.

C.) What is the point of this anyway? Is it some
sort of compensation behaviour?

[Mal]

As P.I.C. you are in charge of safety.

So fly safe and save a life.

[Bert Willing]

Came back from a competition in France where we did line finishes at runway
entry only. Never experienced or saw a critical situation. Lots of fun.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"Stewart Kissel" > a écrit dans le
message de news: ...
> A.) If people are looking for excitement of this type...go
> to a demolition derby.
>
> B.) Those pilots who feel this is their privilege
> to do...are hurting the rest of the sport when avoidable
> accidents occur. The entire sport.
>
> C.) What is the point of this anyway? Is it some
> sort of compensation behaviour?
>
>
>

[jth]

What do you mean by a finish cylinder ? A remote finish point ?

We used a finish cylinder in a competition this summer, but the cylinder was
in the middle of our airfield and the finishes where "normal" low high
energy finishes.

If you use a remote finish cylinder, maybe you will then get low height low
energy finishes to the airfield as pilots calculate their final glides to
the remote point. Any experiences ?

Regards, Jyrki
Finland

[Mal]

A Cylinder of 2000 meters from the middle of the airfield in effect a finish
line radius.

We were also instructed that going below 500 ft may bring a penalty from the
comp officials not that the rules covers it in detail.

33. Finish procedure

33.1 A glider having entered the finish zone must land without delay in a
safe manner. Once on the

ground, taxiing must be in the landing direction unless otherwise advised by
the Contest Director

and/or Safety Officer.

33.2 A glider will be deemed to have finished if it successfully completes
the course, and enters the finish

zone. A glider which lands off the airfield after having entered the finish
zone will be scored as a

finisher. A finishing pilot may not elect to declare an outlanding.

33.3 A pilot is permitted one finish per day.

NEW SOUTH WALES GLIDING ASSOCATION

State Championships Competition Rules

Version Sept 2005 Page 13

33.4 The Organisers must not set a minimum finishing height.

33.5 The Organisers may issue guidelines and recommendations as to the
behaviour of pilots within the

finish zone, including preferred circuit procedure and landing direction.
Pilots will not be penalised for

failing to follow these, unless their behaviour is unsafe.

33.6 A pilot may choose to land straight ahead after finishing but must do
so in a safe manner.

33.7 At least one and preferably two Safety Observers will observe gliders
finishing. The observer(s) will be

the Safety Officer and/or delegate(s).

33.8 The Observer(s) will make a subjective decision as to the question of
safety within the finish zone. The

Observer(s) may issue a warning or a technical penalty, or may refer more
serious matters to the

Penalties Committee.

33.9 The minimum penalty for a breach of safety at the finish will be 20
points. Where the penalty is less

than 100 points it will be considered a technical penalty.


http://www.gfa.org.au/Docs/sport/nswrules.pdf




"jth" > wrote in message
...
> What do you mean by a finish cylinder ? A remote finish point ?
>
> We used a finish cylinder in a competition this summer, but the cylinder
> was in the middle of our airfield and the finishes where "normal" low high
> energy finishes.
>
> If you use a remote finish cylinder, maybe you will then get low height
> low energy finishes to the airfield as pilots calculate their final glides
> to the remote point. Any experiences ?
>
> Regards, Jyrki
> Finland
>
>

[Nick Gilbert]

Mal Wrote:
>A Cylinder of 2000 meters from the middle of the airfield in effect a
>finish line radius.
>
> We were also instructed that going below 500 ft may bring a penalty from
> the comp officials not that the rules covers it in detail.

It is not covered in detail to allow different procedures at different
locations. The 500ft penalty you refer to would be imposed by the contest
organisers at a particular comp. At some sites (such as Temora) they are
dead against it. At other sites, you are encouraged to do it, as long as it
is done safely.

Nick.

[Nick Gilbert]

By the way, these are australian rules we are discussing.

Nick


"Nick Gilbert" > wrote in message
...
> Mal Wrote:
>>A Cylinder of 2000 meters from the middle of the airfield in effect a
>>finish line radius.
>>
>> We were also instructed that going below 500 ft may bring a penalty from
>> the comp officials not that the rules covers it in detail.
>
> It is not covered in detail to allow different procedures at different
> locations. The 500ft penalty you refer to would be imposed by the contest
> organisers at a particular comp. At some sites (such as Temora) they are
> dead against it. At other sites, you are encouraged to do it, as long as
> it is done safely.
>
> Nick.
>

[Mal]

I am alive against it Nick in my youth I have partaken.

Either way I can still win without a beat up.

Besides who wants to trash a $180000.00 AUD worth of glider your dad would
not be happy or Bernard.

Let alone set a bad example to pilots who may try a beat up.

http://www.gfa.org.au/Docs/sport/ Plenty of reading for a cold winters day
such as today.

CASA says the following.
157 Low flying

(1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:

(a) any city, town or populous area, at a height lower than 1000 feet;

or

(b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.

Penalty: 50 penalty units.

(2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict liability.

Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

(3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the highest

point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:

Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 327

Amended CAR - 2nd Ed Office of Legal Counsel

August 2003 Civil Aviation Safety Authority

(a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter-600 metres; or

(b) in the case of a helicopter-300 metres;

from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft .

(3A) Paragraph 1 (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a

designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been

published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or

departing from a specified place.

(4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:

(a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is

essential that a lower height be maintained; or

(b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work

operations, being operations that require low flying, and the

owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a

general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular

flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such

operations; or

(c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over

a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is

authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or

(d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach

procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the

supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or

(e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing

at an aerodrome; or

(f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:

(i) a search; or

(ii) a rescue; or

(iii) dropping supplies;

in a search and rescue operation; or

(g) the aircraft is a helicopter:

(i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal

Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and

(ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or

(h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires

the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in

accordance with directions issued by CASA.

[Bob Fidler]

The USA Finish Cylinder is usually a 2 mile radius circle with a 500 ft
minimum with the center of the radius on home field. This simply means when
you enter the circle 2 miles out, you have finished. The glider is then
safely transitioned into a landing pattern at a slow and low energy pace.
However, even with this finish, you will have the occasional idiot that will
continue the descent and buss the field at a low altitude and high speed.
The best solution is to locate the finish cylinder a few miles away from the
home field.

Bob Fidler
F1

"Nick Gilbert" > wrote in message
...
> By the way, these are australian rules we are discussing.
>
> Nick
>
>
> "Nick Gilbert" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Mal Wrote:
>>>A Cylinder of 2000 meters from the middle of the airfield in effect a
>>>finish line radius.
>>>
>>> We were also instructed that going below 500 ft may bring a penalty from
>>> the comp officials not that the rules covers it in detail.
>>
>> It is not covered in detail to allow different procedures at different
>> locations. The 500ft penalty you refer to would be imposed by the contest
>> organisers at a particular comp. At some sites (such as Temora) they are
>> dead against it. At other sites, you are encouraged to do it, as long as
>> it is done safely.
>>
>> Nick.
>>
>
>

[Nick Gilbert]

Mal,

You are making me send this to you for the second time in 2 days, but, we
have an exemption to the CASA rule you are quoting. Please don't speak as
though you are an authority on something you clearly know very little about.
I am not suggesting that it is mandatory, or even advisable, just that you
are incorrect in your statement.

It is from CAO 95.4 (http://www.gfa.org.au/Docs/airworth/cao954.pdf) and
reads:

4.3 Gliders, powered sailplanes and power-assisted sailplanes participating
in a
gliding competition which has been approved in writing by CASA may, when

within 5 kilometres of the finish line, descend below 500 feet above the
ground

whilst:

(i) keeping the finish line in sight; and

(ii) clearing all obstacles by at least 50 feet; and

(iii) then land straight ahead across the finish line; or

(iv) cross the finish line without descending lower than 50 feet above the

ground or any obstacle thereon and with sufficient energy to

complete a circuit prior to landing.



Nick.


"Mal" > wrote in message
...
>I am alive against it Nick in my youth I have partaken.
>
> Either way I can still win without a beat up.
>
> Besides who wants to trash a $180000.00 AUD worth of glider your dad would
> not be happy or Bernard.
>
> Let alone set a bad example to pilots who may try a beat up.
>
> http://www.gfa.org.au/Docs/sport/ Plenty of reading for a cold winters day
> such as today.
>
> CASA says the following.
> 157 Low flying
>
> (1) The pilot in command of an aircraft must not fly the aircraft over:
>
> (a) any city, town or populous area, at a height lower than 1000 feet;
>
> or
>
> (b) any other area at a height lower than 500 feet.
>
> Penalty: 50 penalty units.
>
> (2) An offence against subregulation (1) is an offence of strict
> liability.
>
> Note For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.
>
> (3) A height specified in subregulation (1) is the height above the
> highest
>
> point of the terrain, and any object on it, within a radius of:
>
> Civil Aviation Regulations 1988 327
>
> Amended CAR - 2nd Ed Office of Legal Counsel
>
> August 2003 Civil Aviation Safety Authority
>
> (a) in the case of an aircraft other than a helicopter-600 metres; or
>
> (b) in the case of a helicopter-300 metres;
>
> from a point on the terrain vertically below the aircraft .
>
> (3A) Paragraph 1 (a) does not apply in respect of a helicopter flying at a
>
> designated altitude within an access lane details of which have been
>
> published in the AIP or NOTAMS for use by helicopters arriving at or
>
> departing from a specified place.
>
> (4) Subregulation (1) does not apply if:
>
> (a) through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is
>
> essential that a lower height be maintained; or
>
> (b) the aircraft is engaged in private operations or aerial work
>
> operations, being operations that require low flying, and the
>
> owner or operator of the aircraft has received from CASA either a
>
> general permit for all flights or a specific permit for the particular
>
> flight to be made at a lower height while engaged in such
>
> operations; or
>
> (c) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flying training and flies over
>
> a part of a flying training area in respect of which low flying is
>
> authorised by CASA under subregulation 141 (1); or
>
> (d) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in a baulked approach
>
> procedure, or the practice of such procedure under the
>
> supervision of a flight instructor or a check pilot; or
>
> (e) the aircraft is flying in the course of actually taking-off or landing
>
> at an aerodrome; or
>
> (f) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in:
>
> (i) a search; or
>
> (ii) a rescue; or
>
> (iii) dropping supplies;
>
> in a search and rescue operation; or
>
> (g) the aircraft is a helicopter:
>
> (i) operated by, or for the purposes of, the Australian Federal
>
> Police or the police force of a State or Territory; and
>
> (ii) engaged in law enforcement operations; or
>
> (h) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in an operation which requires
>
> the dropping of packages or other articles or substances in
>
> accordance with directions issued by CASA.
>
>

[MaD]

I don't get it: Why on earth do so many people pull up and do a
circuit? There must be a difference in the US and the IGC definition of
the finish gate/line. Can someone explain? Why is it not normal (at
least judging from what I read here it isn't in the US) to land
straight in after the finishline?
In a paper by John Cochrane (Safer Finishes) there's a list of
accidents. More than half of them have nothing to do with the finishing
procedure. They could have happened just the same with any other
procedure, some even without a contest, some did'nt even happen at the
airfield. All the others (6) are the pullup-stall-spin type. So again:
why pull up?

After flying dozens of finishes at international comps and many more in
various versions at national and regional comps I am absolutely
convinced that a finishline at ground level at the beginning of the
runway and then landing straight ahead is the safest method, especially
when many competitors arrive at the same time. I'd hate to be in a
situation with ten or more gliders all on circuit at the same time not
knowing who's going to turn when and where because everybody has his
own idea of where the pattern is.

Marcel

[Bert Willing]

Because it's fun.
If you don't like it, or are likely to spin in after the pull-up, just don't
do it. Even with a finish line, nothing prevents you from landing straight
in.

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


"MaD" > a écrit dans le message de news:
. com...
>I don't get it: Why on earth do so many people pull up and do a
> circuit?

[Stefan]

MaD wrote:

> I don't get it: Why on earth do so many people pull up and do a
> circuit?

Because it's faster than a straight in. Ever tried to land on a short
runway after having arrived at the runway threshold with Vne and a full
load of water? That said, at the competitions I know, there is mostly a
minimal height at which the finish line must be crossed if you don't
land straight in.

Stefan

[Pat Russell]

On 12 Aug 2005 04:16:57 -0700, "MaD" > wrote:

> Why is it not normal ...to land
>straight in after the finishline?

>Can someone explain?

Yes.

Many US contests are held at airports, not airfields. In many cases,
the only safe place to land is the runway.

The straight in finish you describe is safe as long as the area
between the finish line and the stopping point is landable, with
plenty of width available for simultaneous finishers.

All contest sites should be round grass fields of 1-mile radius.

-Pat

[jth]

As we see, there are many possibilities and variations on finishes.

If you set a minimun finish altitude on a finish cylinder, you can do the
same for the finish line. No difference there.

It is good to have the line/cylinder so that you can finish and land
directly. But if there are no trees etc. before the airfield, you still have
the low high energy finishes. They just open the airbrakes in high speed
just after the finishline and land straight. So it can still be quite
dangerous.
The finish line should be before the airfield and you should have there a
minumum altitude limit. Or ?

Soaring is not a spectator sport, but we all go out to see the finishes. But
there is not much to see, if the gliders come in slowly and land straight.
Okay, you still have some drama in it, if you know the start times so you
can see who has flown fastest.

[MaD]

Sorry to disagree here. It is normally not faster. If it turns out to
be, it means you seriously misjudged your final glide or the last
thermal was something like 4m/s AND the runway is extremely short.
And yes, at most contests I've flown so far it was possible to land
straight ahead arriving with close to Vne at the beginning of the
runway. As mentioned, that speed is not the one you should try to have
at that point.

Regards
Marcel Duenner

[MaD]

Sorry to disagree here. It is normally not faster. If it turns out to
be, it means you seriously misjudged your final glide or the last
thermal was something like 4m/s AND the runway is extremely short.
And yes, at most contests I've flown so far it was possible to land
straight ahead arriving with close to Vne at the beginning of the
runway. As mentioned, that speed is not the one you should try to have
at that point.

Regards
Marcel Duenner

[MaD]

-But if there are no trees etc. before the airfield, you still have
the low high energy finishes. They just open the airbrakes in high
speed
just after the finishline and land straight. So it can still be quite
dangerous.
---

And what exactly is dangerous about that?

[Eric Greenwell]

MaD wrote:
> Sorry to disagree here. It is normally not faster. If it turns out to
> be, it means you seriously misjudged your final glide

I often do misjudge my final glide, as do many of the other pilots in
the US contests I've flown in. Sometimes it is due to lift along the way
that I didn't predict. At some airports, it is not possible to land
safely within several miles of the airport. Finishers tend to be high
until they are certain they can cross this bad area, then speed up.

> or the last
> thermal was something like 4m/s

Yes, we have these also.

> AND the runway is extremely short.

Our Regional contests are held at Ephrata (Washington State). Is 3000'
extremely short? It is very wide, and easy to land normally on, but not
when arriving at Vne.

> And yes, at most contests I've flown so far it was possible to land
> straight ahead arriving with close to Vne at the beginning of the
> runway.

At some contest airports I've flown at, this is also possible. Usually,
the glider must then be pushed off the runway, and the pilot must wait
an hour or more until there are no more gliders finishing before the
glider can be pushed back down the runway to the tiedown area. If it is
a wide grass field instead of narrow paved runway, it would be possible
to retrieve the glider right away, but that is rarely the case.

> As mentioned, that speed is not the one you should try to have
> at that point.

Western US conditions often mean the final glide is flown very fast.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[MaD]

Eric Greenwell schrieb:

>...
> > or the last
> > thermal was something like 4m/s
>
> Yes, we have these also.
>
> > AND the runway is extremely short.
>
> Our Regional contests are held at Ephrata (Washington State). Is 3000'
> extremely short? It is very wide, and easy to land normally on, but not
> when arriving at Vne.
>

No, here in central Europe 3000' considered long. Few airfields are
that long. Our Airfield actually does have a bit over 3000' of grass
rwy but is no more than 250' wide at the widest point, only about 190'
at the narrowest. Swiss Nationals 1996: I think it was 28 gliders
landing within just over three minutes. No problem, because evrybody
behaved and rolled out to the side. But I can see the problem with
paved runways from which you don't want to roll off without knowing
exactly you won't damage the glider.

[Mal]

So the last comp we flew in did they have permission in writing I think not
so my 500ft statement is correct.

Not only that the said they could not enforce but in the view of safety they
could penalise you did anyone do a beat up no not to my knowledge.

You are quoting National rules not State.

Are gliders finishing below 50ft at some comps yes.

iv) cross the finish line without descending lower than 50 feet above the

ground or any obstacle thereon and with sufficient energy to

complete a circuit prior to landing.

4.3 Gliders, powered sailplanes and power-assisted sailplanes participating
in a gliding competition which has been approved in writing by CASA may,
when
within 5 kilometres of the finish line, descend below 500 feet above the
ground.

The word is Saftey.

A pilot saw me cross the runway in a tractor to pick up a glider I have 25
years experience on airfields.

The same pilot crosses in front of a tug glider combination taking off with
said tractor with a near miss.

He said Mal does it they came to me Nick they said you can do that anymore.

WHAT THEY FAILED TO MENTION IS I LOOK BEFORE CROSSING active runways.

[5Z]

MaD wrote:
> I don't get it: Why on earth do so many people pull up and do a
> circuit?

Because this gives me the opportunity to switch from "final glide" mode
to "landing mode" at a low airspeed. I can't imagine opening my dive
brakes at 140 knots!

> There must be a difference in the US and the IGC definition of
> the finish gate/line. Can someone explain? Why is it not normal (at
> least judging from what I read here it isn't in the US) to land
> straight in after the finishline?

At most competitions with a line, it is located near the middle of the
airport.

A pilot is expected to cross it above 50', then land. If below 50',
then the pilot must have announced a rolling finish and may roll or fly
through, but be in a "slow" landing configuration.

I use an arrival height of 700' in my glide computer. So if all is
perfect, I would cross the airport at this altitude at a normal
interthermal cruise speed. If I hit sink within a mile or so of the
line, I still have the margin to cross either high enough to make a
circuit or do a straight in. If I hit lift, then I speed up and as I
get within a mile or so, I ignore the computer and use my eyeballs as I
push to as fast as I consider safe for the conditions. But I plan on
entering the downwind leg at no less than about 400' and continually
reasess the situation as I fly the last couple of miles.

> In a paper by John Cochrane (Safer Finishes) there's a list of
> accidents. More than half of them have nothing to do with the finishing
> procedure. They could have happened just the same with any other
> procedure, some even without a contest, some did'nt even happen at the
> airfield. All the others (6) are the pullup-stall-spin type. So again:
> why pull up?

Because the pull up is done from a high speed I built up after
determining the altitude margin I had was good enough to make the dive
and pull up. This cuts a few seconds off my time - once I've realized
it is safe to do so. The accidents happen when the pilot is only
thinking of crossing the line and not planning ahead and makes the dive
with not enough energy. I have the option to fly a constant speed and
arrive at 6-700' over midfield, or to dive at the line, then pull up
and agin be at 6-700' on my downwind entry.

You propose I aim for the end of the runway and arrive with near zero
altitude and "some" energy. I don't like this as it puts me too low
and too slow over potentially unlandable terrain. I then am forced to
land straight ahead without the opportunity to get a good look at the
landing area. I also must put down the wheel, lower flaps and extend
the airbrakes while putting more and more runway behind me.

I like to fly a final approach with full flaps and nearly full
spoilers, with a plan to land somewhere convenient in the first 50% of
the runway. If an obstacle appears suddenly, I can close spoilers,
then flaps and float past, then set up another approach as far down the
runway as is safe. Or make an S turn to an adjacent landing area.

> After flying dozens of finishes at international comps and many more in
> various versions at national and regional comps I am absolutely
> convinced that a finishline at ground level at the beginning of the
> runway and then landing straight ahead is the safest method, especially
> when many competitors arrive at the same time. I'd hate to be in a
> situation with ten or more gliders all on circuit at the same time not
> knowing who's going to turn when and where because everybody has his
> own idea of where the pattern is.

At all competitions I have flown, the organizer or gatekeeper suggests
a pattern direction and everyone finishes, then pulls up to pattern
speed and flies the downwind leg (if possible). At this time, the
higher glider may orbit to let the lower one go ahead, or may extend
the downwind leg, etc. Some traffic marshalling occurs in the final
glide, but most of it occurs on the downwind leg while everyone is
operating at a nice leisurely pace compared to the fast final glide.

I have landed behind 8-10 or more sailplanes in this way without any
problem. We were all separated by about a towrope length while abeam
the midfield, all the way to final approach. No problems! Had we been
doing a straight in approach, the gliders would all be flying different
speeds over the threshold and the one behind would have no way to judge
the energy carried by the one in front.

I have also participated in dozens of competitions over the 30+ years I
have been soaring and all of the unsafe finish operations I have seen
involved a single pilot not showing good planning or judgement. I
can't think of any cases where multiple sailplanes were involved in a
(potential) incident, one always was able to take necessary action to
avoid the errant pilot and the possibility of a collision was averted
with plenty of time and room left over. (If you aren't constantly
averting a collision in a thermal, then I don't want to be anywhere
near you!)

I'm not trying to cop out with the "pilot error" excuse here, but it
really is a strong factor. So far most other suggestions for the
contest finish just move the error zone to a different location, but do
not eliminate or even reduce it. In another post it was mentioned that
Mr Knauff thinks we ALL need to learn how to fly better, and I agree.
We should strive to make every approach and landing be perfect at all
phases. We should strive to make our flying be predictable, so the
ones around us can anticipate our next move. Then, it won't matter if
the pattern entry was made from 10' and redline or 1000' and minimum
sink speed. After a couple days at a contest, I know which pilots I
can trust - too bad I can't trust everyone!

Consider the 2-lane highway. Cars pass head on at closing speeds
approaching 150 mph at a distance of less than 10'. It works very well
until some impaired person screws it all up. And if you'd show this to
a remote jungle dweller, he would think we were nuts.

-Tom
ASH-26E 5Z

[Jack]

Mal wrote:

> So the last comp we flew in did they have permission in writing I think not
> so my 500ft statement is correct.

[snipped a bunch of even less comprehensible stuff]

Take a deep breath, Mal, and get in touch with some of the capabilities of
your keyboard -- like punctuation, capitalization, etc.

As it is, it's not possible to understand what it is you think we should know.


Jack

[Eric Greenwell]

Jack wrote:

> Mal wrote:
>
>> So the last comp we flew in did they have permission in writing I
>> think not so my 500ft statement is correct.
>
>
> [snipped a bunch of even less comprehensible stuff]
>
> Take a deep breath, Mal, and get in touch with some of the capabilities
> of your keyboard -- like punctuation, capitalization, etc.
>
> As it is, it's not possible to understand what it is you think we should
> know.

So, it's not just me!
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Duane Eisenbeiss]

"Bob Fidler" > wrote in message
...
> I agree.
>
> ..... snip..... The geezer glide is a fine example of how
> dangerous a Finish Gate can be. I have been on the ground unrigging my
> glider with guys wizzing over the field from all directions. Also, that
> contest is generally flown with short tasks and a lot of gliders finishing
> within a few minutes. This years results two destoyed gliders and a
miracle
> no one was killed.
>
These two accidents had absolutely nothing to do with the finish gate. They
both were simply landing accidents. Why do you use non finish gate
accidents to cast a shadow on the finish gate? Do you not have any relevant
info?

Duane

[[email protected]]

Were these two accidents the result of high speed finishes? I thought
one was the result of misuse of controls. Don't recall the other.

[[email protected]]

Bob,

beware of riding the safety high horse to move a political agenda. The
discussion of contest safety is ongoing and valid, but it will not
serve you as a tool for revisionism. Perhaps a separate thread would
serve you better, but I'll offer this snippit of advice:

Glass Houses!!

Adding visibility to the NSF debacle may get you closer attention than
you really want. If you believe you've done the right thing, live with
it. If you feel the need to market it, be prepared to suffer the slings
of those who think you've run afoul of the organization's charter.

[Bob Salvo]

One of these two accidents was due to a poor approach to landing when
several gliders were doing high speed finishes.
The other was the result of misuse of controls when purposely landing for a
relight.

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Were these two accidents the result of high speed finishes? I thought
> one was the result of misuse of controls. Don't recall the other.
>

[John Sinclair]

There's something about the presence of a photographer
that brings out the idiot in us. I remember a Nationals
at Uvalde a few years back. The CD made an announcement
on contest frequency that the local TV news people
were at the field and how about some 'worm-burners'.
Well, you can guess what came next. I saw guys pulling
up to clear bales of hay. As one pilot made a slight
heading correction, he caught his left wing in some
corn. The drag from this started the ship into a cartwheel
maneuver to the left in the direction of the Finish
Gate tent that contained the CD and a half dozen kids.
Luckily, his speed was great enough to overpower the
drag from the corn and he was able to get his wing
out of the corn and subsequently made a safe landing.

Food for thaught,
JJ Sinclair

[BGMIFF]

EXCUSE ME.........you mean to tell all of us out there that a glider pilot
landing back because he forgot to take drinking water, is the finish gates
problem! The geezer glide had one accident for that reason, and for you to
tell us otherwise is just plain wrong!!!!!


"Bob Fidler" > wrote in message
...
>I agree.
>
> What has surprised me most is that an announcement was made at a fairly
> recent contest ( Sports Nats Lubbock 2002) that the SSA had directed him
> (The CD) to use a FINISH CYLINDER in the interest of safety. I agreed.
> However, since that contest it seems the SSA's support of that policy
> seems
> to have floated away with the wind and the SSA no longer is requesting the
> CD to use a FINISH CYLINDER . The geezer glide is a fine example of how
> dangerous a Finish Gate can be. I have been on the ground unrigging my
> glider with guys wizzing over the field from all directions. Also, that
> contest is generally flown with short tasks and a lot of gliders finishing
> within a few minutes. This years results two destoyed gliders and a
> miracle
> no one was killed.
>
> Frankly, I will probably not compete in a contest that uses a Finish Gate.
> They are just plain dangerous.
>
> Bob, we miss you and JoAnn. Many of us appreciate your dedication to the
> sport of soaring
>
> Bob Fidler
> F1
>
> "birddog bob" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> Why don't people in SRA and SSA get the message about contest safety?
>> A unnecessary loss of life because the FINISH GATE was used and not a
>> FINISH CYLINDER.
>>
>> Charlie Spratt and the top racing pilots want the finish gate at
>> contests because it is so exciting! All the near misses in the pull
>> ups and congestion in the pattern along with rolling finishes with
>> landings opposite to the normal landing pattern!
>>
>> Well contest organizers be ware, when the CD decides to use a start
>> cylinder procedure or change the task completely in the air or use the
>> finish gate, he makes you respondsible for the consequences! Last year
>> the NSF fought against the SSA attempt to force us into using a CD we
>> didn't agree with and lost. We are relieved that we are no longer put
>> in the position of being respondsible for the dictates of a CD we
>> believe places us in jeprody.
>>
>> For those of you that like the thrill of the close calls in
>> competition, may luck be with you and may you all survive and not cause
>> the injury or loss of anothers life!
>>
>
>

[BGMIFF]

This warning should be well taken. The whole NSF mess has died down, and
happily is forgotten, why bring it up again? There is no one out there that
objected to Charlie Spratt's dismissal......IF, the rest of the NSF board
would have been consulted, and they were not, and if some very good reasons
were given for his removal, and they were not. And Mr. Dittert, you can't
follow the rules either, so just go away and leave soaring alone! Regardless
of what you think, starts out the top of the cylinder are allowed, and
generate far less criticism that the finish gate does.
> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Bob,
>
> beware of riding the safety high horse to move a political agenda. The
> discussion of contest safety is ongoing and valid, but it will not
> serve you as a tool for revisionism. Perhaps a separate thread would
> serve you better, but I'll offer this snippit of advice:
>
> Glass Houses!!
>
> Adding visibility to the NSF debacle may get you closer attention than
> you really want. If you believe you've done the right thing, live with
> it. If you feel the need to market it, be prepared to suffer the slings
> of those who think you've run afoul of the organization's charter.
>