How does Winscore calculate finish altitude?

[kirk.stant]

A question: How does Winscore calculate finish altitude on a cylinder
finish? I assume it is based on the logger's pressure altitude
reading for the closest logger fix after crossing the finish line, but
how is that altitude adjusted for the local altimeter setting? Does
it compare the difference between the finish "altitude" and the
altitude recorded when the glider comes to a stop on the field?

What if the field has a slope, and there is a significant difference
in elevation between where the glider stops after a finish (hopefully
not because it's in a tree!) and the official altitude of the finish
point?

On a separate (but related subject), could someone please explain to
me once again how staring at an altimeter and/or doing low energy
pullups during a contest cylinder finish is safe? Or how the
sometimes smarter (from a RACING perspective) alternative of not
wasting the time climbing those extra 500 ft, instead doing an L/D max
glide to a rolling finish, stopping as soon as possible on the first
bit of airfield, is a safer alternative than just calculating a
competitive safe final glide and flying it to the finish, then flying
the pattern dictated by the conditions?

Maybe we need radar altimeters in our gliders - oops, that wouldn't
work at Newcastle, never mind....Too bad our expensive loggers don't
tell us what altitude it's going to tell the scorer we finished at in
real time, so we could salvage a botched finish...

Kirk
66

[Marc Ramsey]

kirk.stant wrote:
> A question: How does Winscore calculate finish altitude on a cylinder
> finish? I assume it is based on the logger's pressure altitude
> reading for the closest logger fix after crossing the finish line, but
> how is that altitude adjusted for the local altimeter setting? Does
> it compare the difference between the finish "altitude" and the
> altitude recorded when the glider comes to a stop on the field?

Something like that, maybe Guy will say something, or if worse comes to
worse, there's always the source code...

> What if the field has a slope, and there is a significant difference
> in elevation between where the glider stops after a finish (hopefully
> not because it's in a tree!) and the official altitude of the finish
> point?

If you're that close, I expect most CDs would simply give a pass, it is
possible for them to override WinScore...

> On a separate (but related subject), could someone please explain to
> me once again how staring at an altimeter and/or doing low energy
> pullups during a contest cylinder finish is safe? Or how the
> sometimes smarter (from a RACING perspective) alternative of not
> wasting the time climbing those extra 500 ft, instead doing an L/D max
> glide to a rolling finish, stopping as soon as possible on the first
> bit of airfield, is a safer alternative than just calculating a
> competitive safe final glide and flying it to the finish, then flying
> the pattern dictated by the conditions?

This is probably why I'll never be a real racing pilot, but the
decision-making with cylinders has always been pretty easy for me. If I
don't think I'm going to make the bottom of the cylinder at best L/D,
but have the airport made, I'd simply choose to go for a rolling finish
thus avoiding the temptation to do something stupid. Of course, since
I've always had a 1000 feet or more of cushion on final glide (or end up
landing elsewhere), I've never had to make that choice. I might be a
few seconds slower than I could be if I were cutting the margins closer,
but it makes final glide and landing much more pleasant, and it hasn't
prevented me from winning the occasional task in the local regionals...

Marc

[toad]

On Jul 26, 5:10 pm, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
....
> On a separate (but related subject), could someone please explain to
> me once again how staring at an altimeter and/or doing low energy
> pullups during a contest cylinder finish is safe? Or how the
> sometimes smarter (from a RACING perspective) alternative of not
> wasting the time climbing those extra 500 ft, instead doing an L/D max
> glide to a rolling finish, stopping as soon as possible on the first
> bit of airfield, is a safer alternative than just calculating a
> competitive safe final glide and flying it to the finish, then flying
> the pattern dictated by the conditions?
>
> Maybe we need radar altimeters in our gliders - oops, that wouldn't
> work at Newcastle, never mind....Too bad our expensive loggers don't
> tell us what altitude it's going to tell the scorer we finished at in
> real time, so we could salvage a botched finish...
>
> Kirk
> 66

Here we go again :-)
I thought that we have this argument during the winter, when we can't
fly.

On a serious note, could you explain to me how a lower altitude is
safer than a higher one ? All other things being equal.

Todd Smith
3S

[Tuno]

> On a serious note, could you explain to me how a lower altitude is
> safer than a higher one ? All other things being equal.

It's a matter of energy, not altitude.

Ask Garret Willat!

2NO

[John Sinclair]

Hi kirk,
Windscore will flag any finish that doesn't meet the
set altitude. The scorer then compares your finish
altitude with the altitude recorded on landing. If
your landing pressure altitude shows 100 feet below
known field altitude, then you are allowed to finish
100 feet below the set finish altitude. Same process
is used for the start.

A contestant who comes home faster and then makes
a rolling finish may beat the guy that finishes slower
to make the 500 foot and 1 mile finish cylinder, soooooooooo,
most CD's will impose a 2 minute penalty for making
a rolling finish.
JJ

At 21:12 26 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>A question: How does Winscore calculate finish altitude
>on a cylinder
>finish? I assume it is based on the logger's pressure
>altitude
>reading for the closest logger fix after crossing the
>finish line, but
>how is that altitude adjusted for the local altimeter
>setting? Does
>it compare the difference between the finish 'altitude'
>and the
>altitude recorded when the glider comes to a stop on
>the field?
>
>What if the field has a slope, and there is a significant
>difference
>in elevation between where the glider stops after a
>finish (hopefully
>not because it's in a tree!) and the official altitude
>of the finish
>point?
>
>On a separate (but related subject), could someone
>please explain to
>me once again how staring at an altimeter and/or doing
>low energy
>pullups during a contest cylinder finish is safe?
>Or how the
>sometimes smarter (from a RACING perspective) alternative
>of not
>wasting the time climbing those extra 500 ft, instead
>doing an L/D max
>glide to a rolling finish, stopping as soon as possible
>on the first
>bit of airfield, is a safer alternative than just calculating
>a
>competitive safe final glide and flying it to the finish,
>then flying
>the pattern dictated by the conditions?
>
>Maybe we need radar altimeters in our gliders - oops,
>that wouldn't
>work at Newcastle, never mind....Too bad our expensive
>loggers don't
>tell us what altitude it's going to tell the scorer
>we finished at in
>real time, so we could salvage a botched finish...
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>

[toad]

On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno > wrote:
> > On a serious note, could you explain to me how a lower altitude is
> > safer than a higher one ? All other things being equal.
>
> It's a matter of energy, not altitude.
>
> Ask Garret Willat!
>
> 2NO

Yeah, but more altitude == more energy, for the same speed.

Todd
3S

[kirk.stant]

On Jul 27, 7:41 am, toad > wrote:
> On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno > wrote:
>
> > > On a serious note, could you explain to me how a lower altitude is
> > > safer than a higher one ? All other things being equal.
>
> > It's a matter of energy, not altitude.
>
> > Ask Garret Willat!
>
> > 2NO
>
> Yeah, but more altitude == more energy, for the same speed.
>
> Todd
> 3S

Todd,

First of all, this is about racing - so lower = faster is the concept
at hand. Safety is always the responsibility of the pilot in command,
and depends on a lot of factors that the rules cannot be expected to
cover.

Imagine a rule in NASCAR that said that if you got within a certain
distance of the wall, you would lose a lap, but the distance changes
based on your speed and you have no way of telling what it is until
after the race is over. Yeah, that would make sense! You would spend
all your time trying to figure out how close you can shave the
"distance" better than the other guy - it's a race, after all!

And since it is about racing, there should be a finish line that can
be determined by the pilot in real time in his cockpit, not a to-be-
determined-after-you-land finish line. I understand fully why the
500' finish rule was implemented. I don't agree with it, but you race
with the rules you get. My problem is that this rule (like the
quickly abandonned "extra 15 minutes on time tasks" rule, is badly
implemented and can cause some unfortunate unexpected consequences.

I have a couple of suggestions to make the finish cylinder better:

First, require the CD or a delegate on the field to have an accurate,
current (I mean right now) altimeter setting (from the center of the
finish airport, not the closest FSS) available to be passed to the
finishing pilot when he makes his 4 mile call. That would allow the
pilot to reset his altimeter and have a better shot at knowing his
altitude within 100' or so (check the spec on altimeter tolerances!).

Second, change the way the "low finish" penalty is scored. Off the
top of my head, if the pilot finishes below 500' agl but above 300'
agl, then add "penalty" time based on the time it would have taken to
climb the altitude required to get up to the 500' finish altitude
(using the average climb rate in the pilots last thermal). That would
take away the advantage of finishing low intentionally, since you can
either spend the time climbing or get it added back by finishing low,
but remove the "all or nothing" penalty that now exists, and would not
require as much clock-watching when approaching the finish in a
crowd. If finishing below 300 ' agl (and most of us can tell the
difference between 500' and 300', most of the time - and with a good
altimeter setting, can hit that altitude window), then use the current
scoring penalty - since at that altitude the pilot will probably want
to do a straight in anyway.

I really love racing, I just hate to see it munged with poorly thought
out and difficult to comply with rules.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[John Sinclair]

Oh, my, my, Kirk, did we get caught with our hand in
the cookie jar?

I set field elevation in my altimiter and then start
300 feet below the top of the gate. I try to finish
a good 2 to 300 feet above the finish cylinder, just
to keep from the problem you had.

At Parowan, Gharlie had a 800 foot, 1 mile gate which
I didn't like, but came to appreciate because it kept
the finishers above the guys in the landing pattern.
JJ



At 13:48 27 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>On Jul 27, 7:41 am, toad wrote:
>> On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno wrote:
>>
>> > > On a serious note, could you explain to me how a
>>>>lower altitude is
>> > > safer than a higher one ? All other things being
>>>>equal.
>>
>> > It's a matter of energy, not altitude.
>>
>> > Ask Garret Willat!
>>
>> > 2NO
>>
>> Yeah, but more altitude == more energy, for the same
>>speed.
>>
>> Todd
>> 3S
>
>Todd,
>
>First of all, this is about racing - so lower = faster
>is the concept
>at hand. Safety is always the responsibility of the
>pilot in command,
>and depends on a lot of factors that the rules cannot
>be expected to
>cover.
>
>Imagine a rule in NASCAR that said that if you got
>within a certain
>distance of the wall, you would lose a lap, but the
>distance changes
>based on your speed and you have no way of telling
>what it is until
>after the race is over. Yeah, that would make sense!
> You would spend
>all your time trying to figure out how close you can
>shave the
>'distance' better than the other guy - it's a race,
>after all!
>
>And since it is about racing, there should be a finish
>line that can
>be determined by the pilot in real time in his cockpit,
>not a to-be-
>determined-after-you-land finish line. I understand
>fully why the
>500' finish rule was implemented. I don't agree with
>it, but you race
>with the rules you get. My problem is that this rule
>(like the
>quickly abandonned 'extra 15 minutes on time tasks'
>rule, is badly
>implemented and can cause some unfortunate unexpected
>consequences.
>
>I have a couple of suggestions to make the finish cylinder
>better:
>
>First, require the CD or a delegate on the field to
>have an accurate,
>current (I mean right now) altimeter setting (from
>the center of the
>finish airport, not the closest FSS) available to be
>passed to the
>finishing pilot when he makes his 4 mile call. That
>would allow the
>pilot to reset his altimeter and have a better shot
>at knowing his
>altitude within 100' or so (check the spec on altimeter
>tolerances!).
>
>Second, change the way the 'low finish' penalty is
>scored. Off the
>top of my head, if the pilot finishes below 500' agl
>but above 300'
>agl, then add 'penalty' time based on the time it would
>have taken to
>climb the altitude required to get up to the 500' finish
>altitude
>(using the average climb rate in the pilots last thermal).
> That would
>take away the advantage of finishing low intentionally,
>since you can
>either spend the time climbing or get it added back
>by finishing low,
>but remove the 'all or nothing' penalty that now exists,
>and would not
>require as much clock-watching when approaching the
>finish in a
>crowd. If finishing below 300 ' agl (and most of us
>can tell the
>difference between 500' and 300', most of the time
>- and with a good
>altimeter setting, can hit that altitude window), then
>use the current
>scoring penalty - since at that altitude the pilot
>will probably want
>to do a straight in anyway.
>
>I really love racing, I just hate to see it munged
>with poorly thought
>out and difficult to comply with rules.
>
>Cheers,
>
>Kirk
>66
>
>
>
>
>

[kirk.stant]

On Jul 27, 12:14 pm, John Sinclair
> wrote:
> Oh, my, my, Kirk, did we get caught with our hand in
> the cookie jar?
>
> I set field elevation in my altimiter and then start
> 300 feet below the top of the gate. I try to finish
> a good 2 to 300 feet above the finish cylinder, just
> to keep from the problem you had.
>
> At Parowan, Gharlie had a 800 foot, 1 mile gate which
> I didn't like, but came to appreciate because it kept
> the finishers above the guys in the landing pattern.
> JJ
>
> At 13:48 27 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Jul 27, 7:41 am, toad wrote:
> >> On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno wrote:
>
> >> > > On a serious note, could you explain to me how a
> >>>>lower altitude is
> >> > > safer than a higher one ? All other things being
> >>>>equal.
>
> >> > It's a matter of energy, not altitude.
>
> >> > Ask Garret Willat!
>
> >> > 2NO
>
> >> Yeah, but more altitude == more energy, for the same
> >>speed.
>
> >> Todd
> >> 3S
>
> >Todd,
>
> >First of all, this is about racing - so lower = faster
> >is the concept
> >at hand. Safety is always the responsibility of the
> >pilot in command,
> >and depends on a lot of factors that the rules cannot
> >be expected to
> >cover.
>
> >Imagine a rule in NASCAR that said that if you got
> >within a certain
> >distance of the wall, you would lose a lap, but the
> >distance changes
> >based on your speed and you have no way of telling
> >what it is until
> >after the race is over. Yeah, that would make sense!
> > You would spend
> >all your time trying to figure out how close you can
> >shave the
> >'distance' better than the other guy - it's a race,
> >after all!
>
> >And since it is about racing, there should be a finish
> >line that can
> >be determined by the pilot in real time in his cockpit,
> >not a to-be-
> >determined-after-you-land finish line. I understand
> >fully why the
> >500' finish rule was implemented. I don't agree with
> >it, but you race
> >with the rules you get. My problem is that this rule
> >(like the
> >quickly abandonned 'extra 15 minutes on time tasks'
> >rule, is badly
> >implemented and can cause some unfortunate unexpected
> >consequences.
>
> >I have a couple of suggestions to make the finish cylinder
> >better:
>
> >First, require the CD or a delegate on the field to
> >have an accurate,
> >current (I mean right now) altimeter setting (from
> >the center of the
> >finish airport, not the closest FSS) available to be
> >passed to the
> >finishing pilot when he makes his 4 mile call. That
> >would allow the
> >pilot to reset his altimeter and have a better shot
> >at knowing his
> >altitude within 100' or so (check the spec on altimeter
> >tolerances!).
>
> >Second, change the way the 'low finish' penalty is
> >scored. Off the
> >top of my head, if the pilot finishes below 500' agl
> >but above 300'
> >agl, then add 'penalty' time based on the time it would
> >have taken to
> >climb the altitude required to get up to the 500' finish
> >altitude
> >(using the average climb rate in the pilots last thermal).
> > That would
> >take away the advantage of finishing low intentionally,
> >since you can
> >either spend the time climbing or get it added back
> >by finishing low,
> >but remove the 'all or nothing' penalty that now exists,
> >and would not
> >require as much clock-watching when approaching the
> >finish in a
> >crowd. If finishing below 300 ' agl (and most of us
> >can tell the
> >difference between 500' and 300', most of the time
> >- and with a good
> >altimeter setting, can hit that altitude window), then
> >use the current
> >scoring penalty - since at that altitude the pilot
> >will probably want
> >to do a straight in anyway.
>
> >I really love racing, I just hate to see it munged
> >with poorly thought
> >out and difficult to comply with rules.
>
> >Cheers,
>
> >Kirk
> >66- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

JJ,

Yes, actually I did get caught out. I cut the margin a bit too close
(My altimeter showed me about 100 ft above the 500', but I suspect my
altimeter needs recalibration) so lost some points. Still won the
day, but It probably cost me the contest. No complaints, it was my
decision - I should have listened to 44 and landed straight in. Less
safe, perhaps, but a better race option. Live and learn...

My problem with the current system is that there is absolutely no way
for the pilot to know exactly where he is in relation to the finish
"line", and in a race situration, that is just plain bad rule-making.
I'm proposing what I think is a better way of addressing the issue,
which still allows the safety police to have their way.

Of course, what I really want is to go back to the finish line!
YeeHa!

At Parowan, I think you were right to use a high finish. But again,
with the current "all or nothing" penalty, the finish is still a
gamble.

Kirk

[BB]

> Yes, actually I did get caught out. I cut the margin a bit too close
> (My altimeter showed me about 100 ft above the 500', but I suspect my
> altimeter needs recalibration) so lost some points.

A good trick here is to look at the altitude that's being recorded in
the GPS rather than the aircraft altimeter. If you have a 302, the
altitude being displayed on the 302 is the same as being recorded on
the GPS so you know to the last foot exactly what's going on. Most
GPS systems can display altitude, you just have to find where it is
and look at it.

>I should have listened to 44 and landed straight in. Less
> safe, perhaps, but a better race option.

In most cases, it's the other way around: an early commitment to a
rolling finish is safer than arriving at 501 feet, 1 mile out, and 42
knots, much safer than staring at the altimeter for the last mile or
so if you're unsure you'll even make that, and far safer than
arriving at a finish line over the center of the airport at 50 feet,
50 knots. Was there something unusual at Ionia that turned this usual
advice around?

John Cochrane

[Tuno]

<snip> the altitude being displayed on the 302 is the same as being
recorded on the GPS </snip>

John, can you confirm that it's the pressure altitude, not GPS
altitude, that's being displayed and recorded?

2NO (finish line fan)

[kirk.stant]

On Jul 27, 1:09 pm, BB > wrote:
> > Yes, actually I did get caught out. I cut the margin a bit too close
> > (My altimeter showed me about 100 ft above the 500', but I suspect my
> > altimeter needs recalibration) so lost some points.
>
> A good trick here is to look at the altitude that's being recorded in
> the GPS rather than the aircraft altimeter. If you have a 302, the
> altitude being displayed on the 302 is the same as being recorded on
> the GPS so you know to the last foot exactly what's going on. Most
> GPS systems can display altitude, you just have to find where it is
> and look at it.
>
> >I should have listened to 44 and landed straight in. Less
> > safe, perhaps, but a better race option.
>
> In most cases, it's the other way around: an early commitment to a
> rolling finish is safer than arriving at 501 feet, 1 mile out, and 42
> knots, much safer than staring at the altimeter for the last mile or
> so if you're unsure you'll even make that, and far safer than
> arriving at a finish line over the center of the airport at 50 feet,
> 50 knots. Was there something unusual at Ionia that turned this usual
> advice around?
>
> John Cochrane

Actually, I was crosschecking my SeeYou Mobile AGL readout with my
altimeter. I thought I was just barely above the line. It showed me
close to the 500', but there is a definite lag in the display. I may
have to reconfigure the display to show straight GPS altitude and
practice with that. Again, the problem is that if you are trying to
win, you have to spend precious time clockwatching at a critical point
of the flight. And on a weak day, 100ft could be as much as a
minute. Yeah, it makes a difference!

Of course, Winscore doesn't use GPS altitude, but pressure altitude.
So you have to hope that there isn't a significant difference between
your logger pressure altitude reading while stopped, and while moving
(I have yet to see a logger hooked up to a static port - have you? I
wonder what the static pressure is in my cockpit on final
glide...fast=more ram pressure=lower altitude? It only takes a few
feet...).

At this particular race, the CD did not set a rolling finish penalty
(and was asked to confirm it prior to the flight in question). I
would easily have saved 2 - 3 minutes (!) by ignoring the 500'
requirement altogether (even though I wasn't really low and slow
enough to need to), pushing over to the deck, pulling spoilers
crossing the fence, planting my glider on the first piece of runway
available, and coming to a screeching halt. Safe? Probably not.
Smart racing? Absolutely! That's one of the reasons I really question
this finish rule and think it needs to be re-addressed - it's got a
few huge loopholes in it!

I realize that to some this may seem to be arguing about angels on a
pinhead, but in racing, seconds really do count - so we shouldn't have
rules that introduce a large unknown in the scoring equation.

IMHO, of course ;^)

Kirk
66

[5Z]

On Jul 27, 12:15 pm, Tuno > wrote:
> <snip> the altitude being displayed on the 302 is the same as being
> recorded on the GPS </snip>
>
> John, can you confirm that it's the pressure altitude, not GPS
> altitude, that's being displayed and recorded?

It's ALWAYS the pressure altitude that's recorded. The altitude
displayed on the 302 is pressure altitude adjusted for the local
altimeter setting.

So unless there is an accurate source of local pressure nearby, it's
impossible to know precisely how high you are at the end of the day.

-Tom

[Brian[_1_]]

While Scoring the Region 8 contest I asked this exact question. I
think I talked to Guy about it but now I don't remember, it might have
been one of the previous scorers in attendance.

I confirmed that the finish alititude is caluclated off the feild
elevation at the beginning of the flight. The theory I heard for
this is that the pressure typically changes through out the day to
make calculating it this way generally give the pilot the benefit of
the doubt.

I confirmed this on several flight logs that had low finishes, that if
it had calculated it on the landing elevation the program would have
scored the finish even lower.


Now the feature that I and several other pilots disagreed with was
scoring a low finish as a Rolling Finish. I am not sure where this
practice comes from but it seems like a poor practice to me. It means
that the pilot that is 10 feet low on the finish and doesn't realize
it get penalized for coming back to the airport and flying a normal
pattern because he doesn't realize the clock is still running. What
this practice promotes is if a pilot is even close to being low they
are encouraged to dive for the runway and land as soon as possible to
get the clock stopped.

In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the pilot enters the
cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder still
racing.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Brian wrote:
> I confirmed that the finish alititude is caluclated off the feild
> elevation at the beginning of the flight. The theory I heard for
> this is that the pressure typically changes through out the day to
> make calculating it this way generally give the pilot the benefit of
> the doubt.
>
> I confirmed this on several flight logs that had low finishes, that if
> it had calculated it on the landing elevation the program would have
> scored the finish even lower.

I looked at the source code for the 2007 version of Winscore, it looks
to me like it uses the most favorable (to the pilot) of the field
elevation corrections determined by looking at samples from 2 minutes
before takeoff, and 2 minutes after landing, to calculate the finish
altitude.

> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the pilot enters the
> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder still
> racing.

That seems like a sensible change to me. In any case, it absolutely
defeats the whole purpose of the finish cylinder if the CD does not
penalize rolling finishes by an amount greater than the time it would
take to climb to the bottom of the cylinder...

Marc

[John Sinclair]

In the past, you region 8 guys have used a graduated
finish penalty something like;
100 foot low = 5 points
200 foot low = 10 points
300 foot low = 15 points
400 foot low = 20 points

I didn't like it because it wasn't in the rules. Might
be time to put something like this in the rules???

I have tried to use GPS pressure altitude and ended
up with a penalty. Things get complicated, you must
read GPS pressure altitude before flight, note correction
(+125 feet or - 236 feet), apply the corrected GPS
pressure altitude to the start and finish pressure
altitude, then select GPS pressure altitude to view
when starting or finishing. Oh, also you need to display
the start/finish distance at the same time. Much toooo
complicated for me, also like kirk said, the GPS isn't
hooked to the ships static system, but your altimiter
is, sooooo set it to field elevation before takeoff
and use it because it's the most accurate information
available, then apply an appropriate margin for error.
JJ

At 20:18 27 July 2007, Brian wrote:
>While Scoring the Region 8 contest I asked this exact
>question. I
>think I talked to Guy about it but now I don't remember,
>it might have
>been one of the previous scorers in attendance.
>
>I confirmed that the finish alititude is caluclated
>off the feild
>elevation at the beginning of the flight. The theory
>I heard for
>this is that the pressure typically changes through
>out the day to
>make calculating it this way generally give the pilot
>the benefit of
>the doubt.
>
>I confirmed this on several flight logs that had low
>finishes, that if
>it had calculated it on the landing elevation the program
>would have
>scored the finish even lower.
>
>
>Now the feature that I and several other pilots disagreed
>with was
>scoring a low finish as a Rolling Finish. I am not
>sure where this
>practice comes from but it seems like a poor practice
>to me. It means
>that the pilot that is 10 feet low on the finish and
>doesn't realize
>it get penalized for coming back to the airport and
>flying a normal
>pattern because he doesn't realize the clock is still
>running. What
>this practice promotes is if a pilot is even close
>to being low they
>are encouraged to dive for the runway and land as soon
>as possible to
>get the clock stopped.
>
>In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>pilot enters the
>cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>still
>racing.
>
>Brian
>CFIIG/ASEL
>
>
>
>

[BB]

>
> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the pilot enters the
> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder still
> racing.
>

You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules change in this
way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet, 90 knots and
then float in to the landing, european-style.

If you don't think people racing inside the cylinder is a good idea,
then what you want is a "hard floor". 499 feet = distance points only.
Now, again, everybody inside 1 mile is done racing, but pilots aim for
500 feet, not for 50 feet.

John Cochrane

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

BB wrote:
>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the pilot enters the
>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder still
>> racing.
>>
>
> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules change in this
> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet, 90 knots and
> then float in to the landing, european-style.

Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below the Minimum Finish
Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually surprised to find
that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines as to how to
penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder. Given the
difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing, missing by
50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but it should also
never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...

Marc

[[email protected]]

> A question: How does Winscore calculate finish altitude on a cylinder
> finish?

Winscore calculates altitudes and finish heights according to SSA
Contest rules 6.7.4.3 and 11.2.1.5.1.

6.7.4.3 If a Flight Recorder records both calculated and pressure
altitude, pressure altitude
will be the primary data source and calculated altitude will be the
backup data source for
flight evaluation.

11.2.1.5.1 When the Scorer must measure a pilot's height above ground
level (AGL),
this height shall be the difference between a recorded fix and that of
a fix recorded on
the ground. For all purposes except finish height, a fix prior to
takeoff shall be used. For
finish height, the Scorer shall use the more favorable of a pre-
takeoff or post-landing fix.

Guy Byars
Author of Winscore

[BB]

On Jul 28, 6:44 am, wrote:
> > A question: How does Winscore calculate finish altitude on a cylinder
> > finish?
>
> Winscore calculates altitudes and finish heights according to SSA
> Contest rules 6.7.4.3 and 11.2.1.5.1.
....
> Guy Byars
> Author of Winscore

Winscore calculates altitudes and finish heights according to SSA
> Contest rules 6.7.4.3 and 11.2.1.5.1.
> ...>
> Guy Byars
> Author of Winscore

What does winscore do about

6.7.4 Altitude recording
6.7.4.1 A Flight Recorder may record altitude derived
from a calculated position. The estimated altitude inaccuracy shall be
applied in a way unfavorable to the pilot (if the flight log does not
include a reliable estimate of this inaccuracy, a value of 75 feet
shall be used).
6.7.4.2 A Flight Recorder may record a calibratable
pressure altitude. If such a device is used in circumstances where
altitude is needed, the altitude inaccuracy determined from the best
available calibration data shall be applied in a way unfavorable to
the pilot.
6.7.4.3 If a Flight Recorder records both calculated
and pressure altitude, pressure altitude will be the primary data
source and calculated altitude will be the backup data source for
flight evaluation.

I've never really understood these rules. Does winscore subtract 75
feet from GPS altitude in deciding if you get a penalty (or add it for
start gates and 17500?) I've never submitted calibration data at a
contest, does 6.7.4.2. apply anywhere?

John Cochrane

[Andy Blackburn]

At 01:48 28 July 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>BB wrote:
>>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>>>pilot enters the
>>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>>>still
>>> racing.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules
>>change in this
>> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet,
>>90 knots and
>> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>
>Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below
>the Minimum Finish
>Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually
>surprised to find
>that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines
>as to how to
>penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder.
> Given the
>difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing,
>missing by
>50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but
>it should also
>never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...
>
>Marc

DISCLAIMER: I understand under the new rules speed
points are no longer allocated pro-rata so as to create
bit more spread at the top of the scoresheet. My math
may, therefore, be a bit off.

The worst case scenario for making marginal final glide
decisions is on a short task where a pilot is climbing
slowly trying to make it up to final glide altitude.
The slow climb takes up lots of minutes per foot gained
and every minute drags down your speed relatively more
on shorter tasks.

So, say you are climbing at 2 knots. It will cost you
about 4 points for every hundred feet you climb, or
about 40 points to go from a white-knuckle 2-knot glide
to 0' at the finish up to a 2-knot glide to a 1000'
AGL arrival. For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000'
drops to 2 points per 1000'.

You could imagine a penalty structure that looks something
like: 8 points per hundred feet divided by the minimum
task time (or the winners time, or your time). This
eliminates most of the incentive to cut a last thermal
short since it is in the pilot's interest to keep climbing
if he thinks there is any chance he will be under the
minimum finish height and he is achieveing a climb
rate of 2 knots or more.

If you're climbing in your final thermal at less than
2 knots you are looking at a dicey glide no matter
what, and probably are contemplating a rolling finish.
It's not clear to me that a penalty structure built
around slower than 2 knot climb rate would do any good
- plus the penalties start to get kind of large (e.g.
16 points per 100 feet if you pick 1 knot as the climb
rate).

With the penalty structure I've described, if you finish
at 500' below the minimum finish height (so you are
at most 500' AGL) and actually fly to more or less
a full pattern it would take about 2.5-3 minutes to
get from the edge of a 1-mile cylinder to a full stop.
This is based on looking at a couple of my contest
finishes at Parowan where the runway is pretty long
and they were asking us to roll all the way to the
end. Guess what? The penalty as described above would
work out to the equivalent of an additional 2.5 minutes,
so the worst case scenario for a low flying finish,
would be no worse than taking the time to landing and
stopping. If you just barely miss the minimum height
you are a lot better off.

In terms of coming to a screeching halt in the middle
of the runway on a rolling finish - it's worth 2-5
points in my estimation. You need to weigh that against
all the other safety considerations and potential penalties
that might be imposed of you were really ver-the-top
about it. Plus the ill-will from your crew when they
have to schlep your glider halfway across the airport.

9B

[Andy Blackburn]

At 01:48 28 July 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>BB wrote:
>>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>>>pilot enters the
>>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>>>still
>>> racing.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules
>>change in this
>> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet,
>>90 knots and
>> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>
>Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below
>the Minimum Finish
>Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually
>surprised to find
>that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines
>as to how to
>penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder.
> Given the
>difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing,
>missing by
>50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but
>it should also
>never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...
>
>Marc

DISCLAIMER: I understand under the new rules speed
points are no longer allocated pro-rata so as to create
bit more spread at the top of the scoresheet. My math
may, therefore, be a bit off.

The worst case scenario for making marginal final glide
decisions is on a short task where a pilot is climbing
slowly trying to make it up to final glide altitude.
The slow climb takes up lots of minutes per foot gained
and every minute drags down your speed relatively more
on shorter tasks.

So, say you are climbing at 2 knots. It will cost you
about 4 points for every hundred feet you climb, or
about 40 points to go from a white-knuckle 2-knot glide
to 0' at the finish up to a 2-knot glide to a 1000'
AGL arrival. For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000'
drops to 2 points per 1000'.

You could imagine a penalty structure that looks something
like: 8 points per hundred feet divided by the minimum
task time (or the winners time, or your time). This
eliminates most of the incentive to cut a last thermal
short since it is in the pilot's interest to keep climbing
if he thinks there is any chance he will be under the
minimum finish height and he is achieveing a climb
rate of 2 knots or more.

If you're climbing in your final thermal at less than
2 knots you are looking at a dicey glide no matter
what, and probably are contemplating a rolling finish.
It's not clear to me that a penalty structure built
around slower than 2 knot climb rate would do any good
- plus the penalties start to get kind of large (e.g.
16 points per 100 feet if you pick 1 knot as the climb
rate).

With the penalty structure I've described, if you finish
at 500' below the minimum finish height (so you are
at most 500' AGL) and actually fly to more or less
a full pattern it would take about 2.5-3 minutes to
get from the edge of a 1-mile cylinder to a full stop.
This is based on looking at a couple of my contest
finishes at Parowan where the runway is pretty long
and they were asking us to roll all the way to the
end. Guess what? The penalty as described above would
work out to the equivalent of an additional 2.5 minutes,
so the worst case scenario for a low flying finish,
would be no worse than taking the time to landing and
stopping. If you just barely miss the minimum height
you are a lot better off.

In terms of coming to a screeching halt in the middle
of the runway on a rolling finish - it's worth 2-5
points in my estimation. You need to weigh that against
all the other safety considerations and potential penalties
that might be imposed of you were really ver-the-top
about it. Plus the ill-will from your crew when they
have to schlep your glider halfway across the airport.

9B

[Andy Blackburn]

At 01:48 28 July 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>BB wrote:
>>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>>>pilot enters the
>>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>>>still
>>> racing.
>>>
>>
>> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules
>>change in this
>> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet,
>>90 knots and
>> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>
>Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below
>the Minimum Finish
>Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually
>surprised to find
>that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines
>as to how to
>penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder.
> Given the
>difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing,
>missing by
>50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but
>it should also
>never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...
>
>Marc

DISCLAIMER: I understand under the new rules speed
points are no longer allocated pro-rata so as to create
bit more spread at the top of the scoresheet. My math
may, therefore, be a bit off.

The worst case scenario for making marginal final glide
decisions is on a short task where a pilot is climbing
slowly trying to make it up to final glide altitude.
The slow climb takes up lots of minutes per foot gained
and every minute drags down your speed relatively more
on shorter tasks.

So, say you are climbing at 2 knots. It will cost you
about 4 points for every hundred feet you climb, or
about 40 points to go from a white-knuckle 2-knot glide
to 0' at the finish up to a 2-knot glide to a 1000'
AGL arrival. For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000'
drops to 2 points per 1000'.

You could imagine a penalty structure that looks something
like: 8 points per hundred feet divided by the minimum
task time (or the winners time, or your time). This
eliminates most of the incentive to cut a last thermal
short since it is in the pilot's interest to keep climbing
if he thinks there is any chance he will be under the
minimum finish height and he is achieveing a climb
rate of 2 knots or more.

If you're climbing in your final thermal at less than
2 knots you are looking at a dicey glide no matter
what, and probably are contemplating a rolling finish.
It's not clear to me that a penalty structure built
around slower than 2 knot climb rate would do any good
- plus the penalties start to get kind of large (e.g.
16 points per 100 feet if you pick 1 knot as the climb
rate).

With the penalty structure I've described, if you finish
at 500' below the minimum finish height (so you are
at most 500' AGL) and actually fly to more or less
a full pattern it would take about 2.5-3 minutes to
get from the edge of a 1-mile cylinder to a full stop.
This is based on looking at a couple of my contest
finishes at Parowan where the runway is pretty long
and they were asking us to roll all the way to the
end. Guess what? The penalty as described above would
work out to the equivalent of an additional 2.5 minutes,
so the worst case scenario for a low flying finish,
would be no worse than taking the time to landing and
stopping. If you just barely miss the minimum height
you are a lot better off.

In terms of coming to a screeching halt in the middle
of the runway on a rolling finish - it's worth 2-5
points in my estimation. You need to weigh that against
all the other safety considerations and potential penalties
that might be imposed of you were really ver-the-top
about it. Plus the ill-will from your crew when they
have to schlep your glider halfway across the airport.

9B

[Andy Blackburn]

At 20:42 28 July 2007, Andy Blackburn wrote:
>At 01:48 28 July 2007, Marc Ramsey wrote:
>>BB wrote:
>>>> In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the
>>>>pilot enters the
>>>> cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder
>>>>still
>>>> racing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules
>>>change in this
>>> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet,
>>>90 knots and
>>> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>>
>>Applying an appropriate penalty for finishing below
>>the Minimum Finish
>>Height would eliminate that behavior. I was actually
>>surprised to find
>>that the SSA competition rules provide no guidelines
>>as to how to
>>penalize pilots who don't make it into the finish cylinder.
>> Given the
>>difficulties of knowing precisely how high one is finishing,
>>missing by
>>50 or so feet shouldn't result in a huge penalty, but
>>it should also
>>never be beneficial to intentionally finish low...
>>
>>Marc
>
>DISCLAIMER: I understand under the new rules speed
>points are no longer allocated pro-rata so as to create
>bit more spread at the top of the scoresheet. My math
>may, therefore, be a bit off.
>
>The worst case scenario for making marginal final glide
>decisions is on a short task where a pilot is climbing
>slowly trying to make it up to final glide altitude.
>The slow climb takes up lots of minutes per foot gained
>and every minute drags down your speed relatively more
>on shorter tasks.
>
>So, say you are climbing at 2 knots. It will cost you
>about 4 points for every hundred feet you climb, or
>about 40 points to go from a white-knuckle 2-knot glide
>to 0' at the finish up to a 2-knot glide to a 1000'
>AGL arrival. For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000'
>drops to 2 points per 1000'.
>
>You could imagine a penalty structure that looks something
>like: 8 points per hundred feet divided by the minimum
>task time (or the winners time, or your time). This
>eliminates most of the incentive to cut a last thermal
>short since it is in the pilot's interest to keep climbing
>if he thinks there is any chance he will be under the
>minimum finish height and he is achieveing a climb
>rate of 2 knots or more.
>
>If you're climbing in your final thermal at less than
>2 knots you are looking at a dicey glide no matter
>what, and probably are contemplating a rolling finish.
>It's not clear to me that a penalty structure built
>around slower than 2 knot climb rate would do any good
>- plus the penalties start to get kind of large (e.g.
>16 points per 100 feet if you pick 1 knot as the climb
>rate).
>
>With the penalty structure I've described, if you finish
>at 500' below the minimum finish height (so you are
>at most 500' AGL) and actually fly to more or less
>a full pattern it would take about 2.5-3 minutes to
>get from the edge of a 1-mile cylinder to a full stop.
>This is based on looking at a couple of my contest
>finishes at Parowan where the runway is pretty long
>and they were asking us to roll all the way to the
>end. Guess what? The penalty as described above would
>work out to the equivalent of an additional 2.5 minutes,
>so the worst case scenario for a low flying finish,
>would be no worse than taking the time to landing and
>stopping. If you just barely miss the minimum height
>you are a lot better off.
>
>In terms of coming to a screeching halt in the middle
>of the runway on a rolling finish - it's worth 2-5
>points in my estimation. You need to weigh that against
>all the other safety considerations and potential penalties
>that might be imposed of you were really ver-the-top
>about it. Plus the ill-will from your crew when they
>have to schlep your glider halfway across the airport.
>
>9B
>
Typo:

For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 1000' drops to 2
points per 1000'.

Should read:

For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 100' drops to 2
points per 100'.

9B

[BB]

In the good old days, there was a simple penalty structure. Finish one
foot low (one foot under the top of the airfiled fence) and you've
landed out for the day, hopefully in the last field before the airport
and not on the fence itself.

It seems a lot simpler to simply move the good old days up 500 feet.
Back then, each pilot set his own safety margin, and didn't expect
anyone except his beer buddies to listen to "but I was only 10 feet
below the finish height".

If we go to fancy altitude-based penalties like JJ wants, or Andy's
carefully figured penalties, then the race goes to guys like me and
Andy who are willing to spend all winter figuring out the scoring
formulas and how to game them. Even the current rolling finish plus x
minutes leads to some fine calculations about thermal strength, chance
of porpoising, and so on to optimally take advantage of the rolling
finish option. Fine with me in a way, I need all the help I can get
and I'm good at math. But simplicity also has its virtues.

John Cochrane

[John Sinclair]

Good post Andy, but I believe we need a set penalty
to discourage deliberately doing a rolling finish on
a good day. I watched a well known pilot make a rolling
finish every day for 5 days in a row (1000 feet and
2 mile finish cylinder). I have recommended the rules
committee consider the following:

up to 100 feet low = 5 point penalty
up to 200 feet low = 10 point penalty
up to 300 feet low = 15 point penalty
up to 400 feet low = 20 point penalty
rolling finish = 25 point penalty
JJ

>Should read:
>
>For a 4-hour task the 4 points per 100' drops to 2
>points per 100'.
>
>9B

[Brian[_1_]]

On Jul 27, 7:14 pm, BB > wrote:
> > In my opinion the clock should stop as soon as the pilot enters the
> > cylinder. We shouldn't have pilots in the finish cylinder still
> > racing.
>
> You haven't met enough contest pilots. If the rules change in this
> way, pilots will aim to finish one mile out, 50 feet, 90 knots and
> then float in to the landing, european-style.
>
> If you don't think people racing inside the cylinder is a good idea,
> then what you want is a "hard floor". 499 feet = distance points only.
> Now, again, everybody inside 1 mile is done racing, but pilots aim for
> 500 feet, not for 50 feet.
>
> John Cochrane

That is easily fixed with a penalty that should be in place of
finishing low. The way I have seen it done is to apply a 1 to 2 minute
penalty for each hundred feed low. The idea is to make it more
beneficial to climb than to finish low.

Brian

[kirk.stant]

Lots of good points made.

I went flying yesterday and found that my SN10 has a beatiful digital
pressure altimeter readout, that is automatically calibrated before
takeoff to field elevation, and can be reset inflight to the latest
altimeter setting if desired.

I also found that my mechanical POS alitmeter lags about 100' during a
final glide, showing me that much higher that the SN10's no-friction
digital readout.

Guess what I'll be using from now on!

Back to the original subject (actually a spin off):

I still think the current hard cutoff at 500 ft is a poor setup, due
to the difficuty for the pilot to accurately judge his altitude at the
time of crossing the line. If the goal is to make pilots finish
higher (for whatever reason), then there needs to be a finish window
the pilot can aim for that if he accurately figures his final glide,
will not be penalized. Let's assume we can hit a 200' window - and
assume that 300' agl is the cutoff for a safe pattern. Setup the
scoring so anywhere in the 200 ft window (300'agl to 500'agl ) is
neutral - if below the nominal 500', then add the time it would have
taken to climb in (based on the climb rate in the last thermal). That
would remove any incentive to finish lower than 500', but give a
reasonable window to shoot for before a bigger penalty (automatic
rolling finish score) kicks in.

Comment? Obvious problems?

Kirk
66

[Andy Blackburn]

At 22:18 29 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>Lots of good points made.
>
>I went flying yesterday and found that my SN10 has
>a beatiful digital
>pressure altimeter readout, that is automatically calibrated
>before
>takeoff to field elevation, and can be reset inflight
>to the latest
>altimeter setting if desired.
>
>I also found that my mechanical POS alitmeter lags
>about 100' during a
>final glide, showing me that much higher that the SN10's
>no-friction
>digital readout.
>
>Guess what I'll be using from now on!
>
>Back to the original subject (actually a spin off):
>
>I still think the current hard cutoff at 500 ft is
>a poor setup, due
>to the difficuty for the pilot to accurately judge
>his altitude at the
>time of crossing the line. If the goal is to make
>pilots finish
>higher (for whatever reason), then there needs to be
>a finish window
>the pilot can aim for that if he accurately figures
>his final glide,
>will not be penalized. Let's assume we can hit a 200'
>window - and
>assume that 300' agl is the cutoff for a safe pattern.
> Setup the
>scoring so anywhere in the 200 ft window (300'agl to
>500'agl ) is
>neutral - if below the nominal 500', then add the time
>it would have
>taken to climb in (based on the climb rate in the last
>thermal). That
>would remove any incentive to finish lower than 500',
>but give a
>reasonable window to shoot for before a bigger penalty
>(automatic
>rolling finish score) kicks in.
>
>Comment? Obvious problems?
>
>Kirk
>66
>


Hey Kirk,

I think if you have a 'zero penalty' band pilots will
tend to use it. I can't figure the difference between
and 700' finish with a 200' band and a 500' finish.

If you are going to try to ease up on the current 'all-or-nothing'
system adding a continuous penalty equal to some low,
but not minuscule, rate of climb. I think 30 to 60
seconds per 100' is reasonable. This would amount to
10-20 points on a long task and 20-40 points on a short
task if you finished 500' low - you could set 500'
under as the maximum penalty, or let it scale all the
way to worm-burner finishes (at a mile out!). The maximum
penalty could also apply to rolling finishes, or just
let the penalty for your actual finish height apply
irrespective of whether you roll or do a pattern. After
all, it's the finish height, not the shape of your
pattern that matters.

Or we could leave it to the CD's discretion. Then pilots
might try a little harder to not miss the finish height.

9B

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

kirk.stant wrote:
> I still think the current hard cutoff at 500 ft is a poor setup, due
> to the difficuty for the pilot to accurately judge his altitude at the
> time of crossing the line. If the goal is to make pilots finish
> higher (for whatever reason), then there needs to be a finish window
> the pilot can aim for that if he accurately figures his final glide,
> will not be penalized. Let's assume we can hit a 200' window - and
> assume that 300' agl is the cutoff for a safe pattern. Setup the
> scoring so anywhere in the 200 ft window (300'agl to 500'agl ) is
> neutral - if below the nominal 500', then add the time it would have
> taken to climb in (based on the climb rate in the last thermal). That
> would remove any incentive to finish lower than 500', but give a
> reasonable window to shoot for before a bigger penalty (automatic
> rolling finish score) kicks in.
>
> Comment? Obvious problems?

I'd suggest the opposite. I think I should be rewarded for every foot
that I have over the minimum finish height of, say, 500' AGL. So, if I
finish at 2000' AGL, I should get the actual time I spent climbing the
last 1500' deducted from my task time. It's more accurate, and it
favors my chosen strategy, what's not to like? 8^)

In reality, any halfway decent glide computer, or software with access
to pressure altitude, will prior to takeoff either automatically
determine the field elevation or let the pilot set it manually. The
same sort of problem exists with the start cylinder if one can climb to
the top. The glide software I use (which I wrote) automatically
determines field elevation just prior to takeoff. It monitors my
altitude in the start cylinder, signals me if I climb through the top
and does a countdown when I reenter, provides progressive warnings as I
approach the hard altitude limit (usually 17500' MSL out here), and
automatically adjusts my arrival altitude based on the minimum finish
height, all based on that initial field elevation measurement. I'm
confident that this will work within a margin of 10 or 20 feet, as it
using the pressure altitude that will ultimately show up in the IGC
file, and I don't have to pay much attention to any of it.

The SN10 also does a pretty good job at this (mine is better, of
course), what's the issue?

Marc

[Brian[_1_]]

However it is done the one thing I agree on is that it needs to be
very simple so everyone understands it.

I like JJ's plan and it is simlar to what was done at Region 8.

IIRC it was something like
1 to 100 feet low = 5 point penalty
101 to 200 feet = 10 point penalty
201 to 300 feet = 15 point penalty
301 to 400 feet = 20 point penalty
401 to 500 feet = 25 point penalty
etc.

The plan has a lot going for it.
1. It is simple
2. it or variations of the penalty make it only a small penalty to
finish a little low and a larger penalty to finish lower.
3. There is no racing in the finish cylinder. One you enter the
cylinder you can concentrate on landing safely.
4. The penalty is not so severe that there is little incentive to
scratch around low outside the cylinder since unless it is a
reasonable thermal it will be more advantagous to take the penalty
than to take a weak thermal.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 29, 4:01 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
> The SN10 also does a pretty good job at this (mine is better, of
> course), what's the issue?
>


The issue is that the the altimeter setting is usually unknown at the
time of landing but it is almost certainly different for the altimeter
setting at takeoff time. The altmeter error on landing, if still
using the takeoff altimeter setting, may exceed 100 feet even if there
is no significant weather change.

Andy

[John Sinclair]

I don't find this to be true, Andy. Altimeters need
to be re-set primarily when landing at a destination
1000's of miles away from the takeoff location. I find
my altimeter to be surprisingly accurate when landing
at my takeoff location after a 4 hour flight. This
is true with the SN10 altineter, also.
JJ


>The issue is that the the altimeter setting is usually
>unknown at the
>time of landing but it is almost certainly different
>for the altimeter
>setting at takeoff time. The altmeter error on landing,
>if still
>using the takeoff altimeter setting, may exceed 100
>feet even if there
>is no significant weather change.
>
>Andy
>
>

[John Sinclair]

I don't find this to be true, Andy. Altimeters need
to be re-set primarily when landing at a destination
1000's of miles away from the takeoff location. I find
my altimeter to be surprisingly accurate when landing
at my takeoff location after a 4 hour flight. This
is true with the SN10 altineter, also.
JJ


>The issue is that the the altimeter setting is usually
>unknown at the
>time of landing but it is almost certainly different
>for the altimeter
>setting at takeoff time. The altmeter error on landing,
>if still
>using the takeoff altimeter setting, may exceed 100
>feet even if there
>is no significant weather change.
>
>Andy
>
>

[kirk.stant]

> I think if you have a 'zero penalty' band pilots will
> tend to use it. I can't figure the difference between
> and 700' finish with a 200' band and a 500' finish.

Andy,

My point is that the current system encourages you (the racing pilot)
to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at the risk of losing
a lot if you miscalculate - or opt for a low altitude dash to a rushed
landing to minimize your losses. Plus it encourages expensive gadgets/
software (as I now realize that my SN10 will show the info I need, for
example - priced one lately?) and clock watching at the finish.

Providing an "altitude-neutral" band to finish in should remove the
incentive to aim for the bottom, since there would no longer be a
benefit to be gained, while the risk of losing a lot would be a strong
incentive to aim for the top of the finish band. The band should be
big enough to hit easily with a properly set regular altimeter (I
think 200' would work) without being so big the adjustment for
altitude becomes "gameable".

Heck, how about adding one second for every 2 feet below the top -
that works out to a 1.2 knot final climb - which wouldn't hurt you
much if you were 20 ft low, but would still encourage not finishing
199 ft low (who wants to give away time, after all).

The addition of "no racing after the finish" (i.e. if below the
bottom, the "hard deck" in fighter speak, you get your finish and
penalty right there and can forget about a straight in finish and
concentrate on making a safe low altitude landing) would additionally
discourage high risk finishes.

I know, I know, enough whining, this is pretty much beat to death -
time to start bashing 2-33s again...

Cheers,

Kirk

[toad]

kirk.stant wrote:
....
> My point is that the current system encourages you (the racing pilot)
> to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at the risk of losing
> a lot if you miscalculate -

Kirk,

Doesn't the old fashioned system encourage you to finish at 50 ft
altitude and 70-90 knots airspeed (whatever was MC speed for your last
thermal) ? Each pilot added extra margin for their own comfort, but
the scoring encouraged them to leave no margin.

Todd Smith
3S

[kirk.stant]

On Jul 30, 9:23 am, toad > wrote:
> kirk.stant wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > My point is that the current system encourages you (the racing pilot)
> > to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at the risk of losing
> > a lot if you miscalculate -
>
> Kirk,
>
> Doesn't the old fashioned system encourage you to finish at 50 ft
> altitude and 70-90 knots airspeed (whatever was MC speed for your last
> thermal) ? Each pilot added extra margin for their own comfort, but
> the scoring encouraged them to leave no margin.
>
> Todd Smith
> 3S

Absolutely. But the big difference is that I can SEE 50'. And
depending on the field conditions and approaches, you either added a
big pad (small field, no options if too low) or could push it lower
(lots of available runways, landable fields on the approaches). Since
these decisions affected all the pilots competing, they really even
out - since the penalty for landing just short are really extreme!

But move that up to 500' and you cannot eyeball the finish anymore -
so you either have to throw in a big pad (bogus from a racing
standpoint) or take a big racing risk. Or play the rule and bypass
the safety issue altogether.

People keep on harping how the scoring encourages pilots to leave no
margin. Uh, excuse me, but do you know of any competitive sport that
doesn't? That's why it's called a race! But at the same time, you
can't win by crashing - and as pilot in command it is entirely my
responsibility to not exceed my skill and equipment performance while
completing the task - as close to the margin as rules allow.

Heck, in boat racing, some of the rules encourage collisions (try
being on the start boat end of a Laser start - I've been right-of-
wayed right into the boat by a serious competitor - and properly so)!
Thankfully we aren't that aggressive in soaring (although a limited
altitude start gaggle gets pretty close!).

Now before you accuse me of being a daredevil (I've been called worse)
let me say that I have no problem with rules that encourage a safe
finish by not requireing a dangerous finish. But the rule has to
consider the Race aspect as much as the Safety aspect. Our current
finish cylinder rule does not, IMO.

Sorry, I promise to get help...

Kirk

[Marc Ramsey[_2_]]

Andy wrote:
> On Jul 29, 4:01 pm, Marc Ramsey > wrote:
>> The SN10 also does a pretty good job at this (mine is better, of
>> course), what's the issue?
>>
>
>
> The issue is that the the altimeter setting is usually unknown at the
> time of landing but it is almost certainly different for the altimeter
> setting at takeoff time. The altmeter error on landing, if still
> using the takeoff altimeter setting, may exceed 100 feet even if there
> is no significant weather change.

SSA competition rules explicitly state that the finish altitude is
determined based on the most favorable (to the pilot) of the baselines
established at *takeoff*, as well as landing. Guy has verified that
Winscore is doing precisely that. If one leaves their glide computer at
the takeoff altimeter setting, or the glide software is able to
calculate a takeoff pressure altitude baseline and uses that to
determine the finish arrival altitude (as mine does), altimeter error is
simply not a factor...

Marc

[toad]

On Jul 30, 10:56 am, "kirk.stant" > wrote:
> On Jul 30, 9:23 am, toad > wrote:
>
>
>
> > kirk.stant wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > My point is that the current system encourages you (the racing pilot)
> > > to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at the risk of losing
> > > a lot if you miscalculate -
>
> > Kirk,
>
> > Doesn't the old fashioned system encourage you to finish at 50 ft
> > altitude and 70-90 knots airspeed (whatever was MC speed for your last
> > thermal) ? Each pilot added extra margin for their own comfort, but
> > the scoring encouraged them to leave no margin.
>
> > Todd Smith
> > 3S
>
> Absolutely. But the big difference is that I can SEE 50'. And
> depending on the field conditions and approaches, you either added a
> big pad (small field, no options if too low) or could push it lower
> (lots of available runways, landable fields on the approaches). Since
> these decisions affected all the pilots competing, they really even
> out - since the penalty for landing just short are really extreme!

I see you point about being able to visually identify 50' altitude,
but I disagree
that the decisions even out. Because pilot A can choose to leave 0'
margin, but
pilot B chooses 500' margin.

>
> But move that up to 500' and you cannot eyeball the finish anymore -
> so you either have to throw in a big pad (bogus from a racing
> standpoint) or take a big racing risk. Or play the rule and bypass
> the safety issue altogether.
>
> People keep on harping how the scoring encourages pilots to leave no
> margin. Uh, excuse me, but do you know of any competitive sport that
> doesn't?

Competitive and dangerous sports build the desired minimums into the
rules.
Car races limit engine horsepower, mandate strength standards and
safety equipment,
this all makes the cars slower. Sailboats require certain safety
equipment, etc.
Whitewater races are required to wear life jackets and helmets.

>
> Heck, in boat racing, some of the rules encourage collisions (try
> being on the start boat end of a Laser start - I've been right-of-
> wayed right into the boat by a serious competitor - and properly so)!
> Thankfully we aren't that aggressive in soaring (although a limited
> altitude start gaggle gets pretty close!).

Well, you should have known there was no room in there before you
barged !
Most sailboat ROW issues don't have the consequences of a short
landing.

> Now before you accuse me of being a daredevil (I've been called worse)
> let me say that I have no problem with rules that encourage a safe
> finish by not requireing a dangerous finish. But the rule has to
> consider the Race aspect as much as the Safety aspect. Our current
> finish cylinder rule does not, IMO.

I think that the details might need to be tweaked, but the rule does
try to
consider the racing as well as the safety. The old rule ignored
safety and left that part
to the pilot.

Maybe we need a tethered balloon with a laser level to mark finish
height ;-)

>
> Sorry, I promise to get help...

Just go fly.

>
> Kirk

Todd Smith
3S

[5Z]

On Jul 30, 7:21 am, John Sinclair
> wrote:
> I don't find this to be true, Andy. Altimeters need
> to be re-set primarily when landing at a destination
> 1000's of miles away from the takeoff location.

We have an AWOS right on the airport, so I set the mechanical and 302
to this shortly before takeoff. When I check the altimeter after 4-6
hours, the change is typically 1-200' - and usually puts me lower.
Really unsettling if I'm on a marginal glide and the air looks stable
ahead.

-Tom

[John Sinclair]

Tom,
You are noting the altimeter correction factor and
then applying it to the new altimeter setting, aren't
you?

If I get 29.90 from AWOS at Minden and then set it
into my altimeter and it reads 4800 feet, I must readjust
the setting to make it read field elevation (4720)
and then note the altimeter correction factor (- .1)
which I must apply to any new altimeter setting I get
in the air.
JJ

At 17:12 30 July 2007, 5z wrote:
>On Jul 30, 7:21 am, John Sinclair
> wrote:
>> I don't find this to be true, Andy. Altimeters need
>> to be re-set primarily when landing at a destination
>> 1000's of miles away from the takeoff location.
>
>We have an AWOS right on the airport, so I set the
>mechanical and 302
>to this shortly before takeoff. When I check the altimeter
>after 4-6
>hours, the change is typically 1-200' - and usually
>puts me lower.
>Really unsettling if I'm on a marginal glide and the
>air looks stable
>ahead.
>
>-Tom
>
>

[5Z]

On Jul 30, 2:12 pm, John Sinclair
> wrote:
> Tom,
> You are noting the altimeter correction factor and
> then applying it to the new altimeter setting, aren't
> you?

When I set my altimeter per the Kollsman window, it reads field
elevation +/-20' so there is no correction factor needed.

In a contest, if the field elevation is 1234' MSL, and if there is a
nearby altimeter available, I'll typically see something like
1200-1250, so I just set my 500' finish to be at 1800' MSL as
indicated on the altimeter.

FYI, it's really easy to sync the Kollsman indication to match the
field elevation, but probably not something to be done outside a
repair station. :)



-Tom

[Andy[_1_]]

On Jul 30, 6:21 am, John Sinclair
> wrote:
> I don't find this to be true, Andy. Altimeters need
> to be re-set primarily when landing at a destination
> 1000's of miles away from the takeoff location. I find
> my altimeter to be surprisingly accurate when landing
> at my takeoff location after a 4 hour flight. This
> is true with the SN10 altineter, also.
> JJ

JJ,

My observation is based on analysis of many of my own flight logs. I
am so convinced this 100 foot difference is valid that, if there is no
local altimeter setting available, I set my altimeter 100ft lower
before starting final glide. I had planned to spend this evening
reviewing your recent flight logs but I don't find you as a registered
OLC contestant. Perhaps you could check a few of your logs,
measuring the exact difference between on ground altitude at takeoff
and on ground altitude after landing and report the results. If you
use Parowan logs please allow for the difference due to runway slope.
( most days I was there this year takeoffs were from the low end and
landings ended at the high end)

Andy

[John Sinclair]

As this discussion has shown, if you set field elevation
before takeoff and don't change it, then finish with
500 feet on your altimeter, Windscore won't flag you
with a penalty. That's what I do and I haven't been
tagged with a finish penalty yet. Start gate is another
story......................
JJ

At 02:36 31 July 2007, Andy wrote:
>On Jul 30, 6:21 am, John Sinclair
> wrote:
>> I don't find this to be true, Andy. Altimeters need
>> to be re-set primarily when landing at a destination
>> 1000's of miles away from the takeoff location. I
>>find
>> my altimeter to be surprisingly accurate when landing
>> at my takeoff location after a 4 hour flight. This
>> is true with the SN10 altineter, also.
>> JJ
>
>JJ,
>
>My observation is based on analysis of many of my own
>flight logs. I
>am so convinced this 100 foot difference is valid that,
>if there is no
>local altimeter setting available, I set my altimeter
>100ft lower
>before starting final glide. I had planned to spend
>this evening
>reviewing your recent flight logs but I don't find
>you as a registered
>OLC contestant. Perhaps you could check a few of
>your logs,
>measuring the exact difference between on ground altitude
>at takeoff
>and on ground altitude after landing and report the
>results. If you
>use Parowan logs please allow for the difference due
>to runway slope.
>( most days I was there this year takeoffs were from
>the low end and
>landings ended at the high end)
>
>Andy
>
>

[Duane Eisenbeiss[_2_]]

"Andy" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> My observation is based on analysis of many of my own flight logs. I
> am so convinced this 100 foot difference is valid that, if there is no
> local altimeter setting available, ....... snip
> Andy
>
I also beleive the 100 foot (plus or minus) from take-off to landing is
valid.
It is called diurnial effect. The suns heating of the ground during the day
causes the pressure in the lower atmosphere to decrease slighly causing the
altimeter to read about 100 feet higher than actual. This is on most days,
we all know that weather facts are sometimes variable. Of course if you
land next to some mountains where there is down flow during the late
afternoon your milage (pressure) may vary.

Duane

[Andy Blackburn]

At 13:54 30 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>> I think if you have a 'zero penalty' band pilots will
>> tend to use it. I can't figure the difference between
>> and 700' finish with a 200' band and a 500' finish.
>
>Andy,
>
>My point is that the current system encourages you
>(the racing pilot)
>to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at
>the risk of losing
>a lot if you miscalculate - or opt for a low altitude
>dash to a rushed
>landing to minimize your losses. Plus it encourages
>expensive gadgets/
>software (as I now realize that my SN10 will show the
>info I need, for
>example - priced one lately?) and clock watching at
>the finish.
>
>Providing an 'altitude-neutral' band to finish in should
>remove the
>incentive to aim for the bottom, since there would
>no longer be a
>benefit to be gained, while the risk of losing a lot
>would be a strong
>incentive to aim for the top of the finish band. The
>band should be
>big enough to hit easily with a properly set regular
>altimeter (I
>think 200' would work) without being so big the adjustment
>for
>altitude becomes 'gameable'.
>
>Heck, how about adding one second for every 2 feet
>below the top -
>that works out to a 1.2 knot final climb - which wouldn't
>hurt you
>much if you were 20 ft low, but would still encourage
>not finishing
>199 ft low (who wants to give away time, after all).
>
>The addition of 'no racing after the finish' (i.e.
>if below the
>bottom, the 'hard deck' in fighter speak, you get your
>finish and
>penalty right there and can forget about a straight
>in finish and
>concentrate on making a safe low altitude landing)
>would additionally
>discourage high risk finishes.
>
>I know, I know, enough whining, this is pretty much
>beat to death -
>time to start bashing 2-33s again...
>
>Cheers,
>
>Kirk
>


I must be missing the point Kirk - if there is no penalty
for finishing at the bottom of the 'neutral band' then
I'd be inclined to shoot for the bottom of it to save
time. With the 30 seconds per 100' penalty band my
behavior changes - in that case I'd shoot for the top
of the penalty band but wouldn't worry too much about
a few feet of miscalculation or misjudgement. Are you
thinking of my 'penalty band' when you say 'neutral
band'? Maybe that's it.

9B

[kirk.stant]

On Jul 31, 1:06 pm, Andy Blackburn >
wrote:
> At 13:54 30 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> >> I think if you have a 'zero penalty' band pilots will
> >> tend to use it. I can't figure the difference between
> >> and 700' finish with a 200' band and a 500' finish.
>
> >Andy,
>
> >My point is that the current system encourages you
> >(the racing pilot)
> >to shave the 500' limit as close as you can, but at
> >the risk of losing
> >a lot if you miscalculate - or opt for a low altitude
> >dash to a rushed
> >landing to minimize your losses. Plus it encourages
> >expensive gadgets/
> >software (as I now realize that my SN10 will show the
> >info I need, for
> >example - priced one lately?) and clock watching at
> >the finish.
>
> >Providing an 'altitude-neutral' band to finish in should
> >remove the
> >incentive to aim for the bottom, since there would
> >no longer be a
> >benefit to be gained, while the risk of losing a lot
> >would be a strong
> >incentive to aim for the top of the finish band. The
> >band should be
> >big enough to hit easily with a properly set regular
> >altimeter (I
> >think 200' would work) without being so big the adjustment
> >for
> >altitude becomes 'gameable'.
>
> >Heck, how about adding one second for every 2 feet
> >below the top -
> >that works out to a 1.2 knot final climb - which wouldn't
> >hurt you
> >much if you were 20 ft low, but would still encourage
> >not finishing
> >199 ft low (who wants to give away time, after all).
>
> >The addition of 'no racing after the finish' (i.e.
> >if below the
> >bottom, the 'hard deck' in fighter speak, you get your
> >finish and
> >penalty right there and can forget about a straight
> >in finish and
> >concentrate on making a safe low altitude landing)
> >would additionally
> >discourage high risk finishes.
>
> >I know, I know, enough whining, this is pretty much
> >beat to death -
> >time to start bashing 2-33s again...
>
> >Cheers,
>
> >Kirk
>
> I must be missing the point Kirk - if there is no penalty
> for finishing at the bottom of the 'neutral band' then
> I'd be inclined to shoot for the bottom of it to save
> time. With the 30 seconds per 100' penalty band my
> behavior changes - in that case I'd shoot for the top
> of the penalty band but wouldn't worry too much about
> a few feet of miscalculation or misjudgement. Are you
> thinking of my 'penalty band' when you say 'neutral
> band'? Maybe that's it.
>
> 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I guess I'm not making myself very clear. I see the "neutral band" as
an area where there is no advantage anywhere in it - you get the time
it would take to climb to the top added if you finish below the top.
So you might as well climb the extra 200 ft and not risk a low finish,
but having done that, if you run into sink and finish 100' below the
top (but 100' above the bottom) you only get dinged by the time you
would have spent getting that 100 ft back. But if you push it and aim
for the bottom of the neutral band, you get time added (time it would
have taken to climb to the top), and if you miss low - then you get a
big hit (no finish or rolling finish). To me, that would encourage me
to plan my final glide to the top of the window, but not worry too
much if I'm 50 ft low when I finally cross the line. If I saw I was
getting too close to finishing at the bottom, then I could slow down
early enough or change my finish strategy.

I guess that the crucial calculation would be the climb rate used to
equalize the neutral band. A bad choice would obviously create a bias
towards finishing high or low. Better to bias towards finishing high?

And maybe 200' is too much - perhaps a 100 ft window?

I'm no mathematician, so my logic and assumptions may be false, but it
seems doable to have the rule create a "window" that we can aim for
(assuming we want to win, and are not going to climb way above the
optimum finish height).

A side note - which of the current glide computers/PDA programs figure
the final glide to the finish line, instead of to the finish point
(center of the finish circle)? I'm pretty sure my SN10 figures to the
center of the finish circle, not the actual line - Dave Nadler, if you
are reading this, could you chime in?

Kirk