competition finishes

[Derek Ruddock]

All the recent heated debate on competition finishes,
and how to change the rules to prevent beat ups, has
focussed on a minimum height finish, which also has
its problems.
Why not approach the problem from a different direction,
and have a rule that states a maximum speed within
a radius of the airfield, for example 70 knots within
2 miles or 5km?
This will not prevent competitors from converting their
margin to speed, but due to the distance that remains
to be covered, will ensure that it takes place at a
reasonable height.
Note I use the 70 knot/2 mile figure as an example
only. The numbers can obviously be changed as appropriate.

[Derek Copeland]

So how are you going to police this? Radar guns? Measuring
GPS logger plots after the event? Would it be ground
speed or airspeed, and if the latter, how would you
allow for wind speed and gusts? All sounds a bit impractical
to me!

Derek Copeland

At 21:36 12 February 2007, Derek Ruddock wrote:
>All the recent heated debate on competition finishes,
>and how to change the rules to prevent beat ups, has
>focussed on a minimum height finish, which also has
>its problems.
>Why not approach the problem from a different direction,
>and have a rule that states a maximum speed within
>a radius of the airfield, for example 70 knots within
>2 miles or 5km?
>This will not prevent competitors from converting their
>margin to speed, but due to the distance that remains
>to be covered, will ensure that it takes place at a
>reasonable height.
>Note I use the 70 knot/2 mile figure as an example
>only. The numbers can obviously be changed as appropriate.
>
>
>
>

[Mal[_3_]]

More like laughable considering I do not ever recall Derek winning a comp
day!

Our Australian comp rules and CAR's have accommodation for low finishes and
the GFA now requires a log book endorsement to do so.

http://www.nswgc2006.com.au/doc/NSW_Comps_Local_Rules_Nov06.pdf

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

[Tuno]

A logbook endorsement sounds logical. Who in Australia are authorized
to do them?

I remember when I started racing a few years ago having to figure it
out for myself. Of course, I picked the brains of the pilots I was
racing with, but outside of that, the topic was not addressed (in a
how-to fashion) in any of the stack of racing-related reading
materials I assembled, which I found curious. It seemed to be a
sanctioned activity, after all.

I've always viewed fast, low finishes them as something of a penalty
(speaking in a racing context, of course). If you have the energy to
spend the last few miles of your last leg in a highly inefficient part
of the polar, it means you accumulated too much energy before starting
your final glide, and you lose more from that than you gain with a low
finish.

But they sure are fun to watch. I will never forget the sight of a 15M
glass slipper doing a worm burner finish at Seminole Lakes in November
2003 when I was a pre-solo student stick. He went by at mach 2, a
meter off the grass, from one length of the field to the other, and I
never heard a whisper, and he was maybe 100 meters away. I was amazed,
and I was hooked.

~ted/2NO

[Mal[_3_]]

16. FINISH PROCEDURE: The finish line shall be the perimeter of a circle of
1.5km in radius

centred on the Aerodrome finish co-ordinates. Finishes are to be in
accordance with

CAO 95.4 (ie not below 500 feet AGL) until within 5 kilometres of the finish
line and must clear all

obstacles by at least 50 feet. Pilots should finish from the direction of
the last turnpoint or control

point.

http://www.gfa.org.au/ops/endorsement.php

http://www.casa.gov.au/download/orders/cao95/9504.pdf

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 13, 1:48 am, "Mal" > wrote:
> 16. FINISH PROCEDURE: The finish line shall be the perimeter of a circle

I read the linked documents but could not find a reference to how a
pilot qualifies for the low level enforsement. Does it require
specific training, or is it sufficient to have been doing it for years
without mishap.

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Feb 12, 8:26 pm, "Tuno" > wrote:
> I've always viewed fast, low finishes them as something of a penalty
> (speaking in a racing context, of course). If you have the energy to
> spend the last few miles of your last leg in a highly inefficient part
> of the polar, it means you accumulated too much energy before starting
> your final glide, and you lose more from that than you gain with a low
> finish.

Sure - it's more efficient to finish at your interthermal speed but
the penalty for finding yourself too low and topping off in a garbage
thermal is far worse that keeping a safety margin and burning it at
the end. How much safety margin may depend on pilot experience, the
terrain close to the airport, and the expectation of lift/sink.

In USA it was common to finish at 50ft min through the line and then
pull up and fly a circuit to land. It seems other countries are flying
a worm burner to a straight in landing. That seems to give less
options if the runway is congested.

Andy

[Mal[_3_]]

"Andy" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 13, 1:48 am, "Mal" > wrote:
>> 16. FINISH PROCEDURE: The finish line shall be the perimeter of a circle
>
> I read the linked documents but could not find a reference to how a
> pilot qualifies for the low level enforsement. Does it require
> specific training, or is it sufficient to have been doing it for years
> without mishap.
>
> Andy
>

http://www.gfa.org.au/Docs/ops/opregs.pdf links to the right have the info.

Specific training or demonstration would qualify as long as the instructor
was certified to do it.