Safety finish rule & circle radius

[Frank[_1_]]

As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
modification.

Background:

On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
200ft/mile.

About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.

Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.

At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
Several other pilots related similar stories.

After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.

So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
no matter what you do.


Any thoughts on this?

Frank(TA)

[Tuno]

I agree with you Frank.

I didn't grok the safety finish rule the first time I read it,
precisely because I didn't see what use it could be with bigger (read:
problematic) storms. Making 5 miles the minimum, and letting the CD
pick the size, is the logical solution.

~ted/2NO

[CLewis95]

Frank,

My circumstances were identical to yours that day.

Keeping the 5sm radius as a minimum, and specifying a maximum radius
the CD can call, is well worth considering. The only issue I can see
is the clear communicating of the "CD chosen" radius along with the
announcement that the Safety Finish was in effect. I remember how
hectic the radio traffic was during that time. This could be helped a
little by allowing only 5 or 10 (and/or 15?) mile radii to be called
by CD. Pilots could anticipate one of these values...as opposed to
listening for and clearly understanding for example a "7 mile safety
finish is in effect" from the CD.

Great issue for more discussion.

Curt - 95


On Sep 7, 1:57 pm, Frank > wrote:
> As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
> Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
> modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
> regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
> thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
> for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
> modification.
>
> Background:
>
> On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
> storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
> return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
> safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
> cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
> located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
> 200ft/mile.
>
> About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
> landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
> was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
> a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.
>
> Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
> applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
> enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
> across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
> wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.
>
> At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
> home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
> situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
> nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
> airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
> felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
> ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
> and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
> to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
> Several other pilots related similar stories.
>
> After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
> 'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
> been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
> surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
> floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
> 'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.
>
> So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
> decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
> activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
> to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
> glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
> floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
> floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
> somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
> makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
> should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
> no matter what you do.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Frank(TA)

[[email protected]]

On Sep 8, 1:07 am, CLewis95 > wrote:
> Frank,
>
> My circumstances were identical to yours that day.
>
> Keeping the 5sm radius as a minimum, and specifying a maximum radius
> the CD can call, is well worth considering. The only issue I can see
> is the clear communicating of the "CD chosen" radius along with the
> announcement that the Safety Finish was in effect. I remember how
> hectic the radio traffic was during that time. This could be helped a
> little by allowing only 5 or 10 (and/or 15?) mile radii to be called
> by CD. Pilots could anticipate one of these values...as opposed to
> listening for and clearly understanding for example a "7 mile safety
> finish is in effect" from the CD.
>
> Great issue for more discussion.
>
> Curt - 95
>
> On Sep 7, 1:57 pm, Frank > wrote:
>
>
>
> > As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
> > Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
> > modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
> > regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
> > thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
> > for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
> > modification.
>
> > Background:
>
> > On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
> > storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
> > return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
> > safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
> > cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
> > located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
> > 200ft/mile.
>
> > About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
> > landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
> > was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
> > a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.
>
> > Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
> > applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
> > enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
> > across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
> > wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.
>
> > At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
> > home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
> > situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
> > nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
> > airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
> > felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
> > ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
> > and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
> > to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
> > Several other pilots related similar stories.
>
> > After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
> > 'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
> > been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
> > surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
> > floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
> > 'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.
>
> > So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
> > decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
> > activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
> > to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
> > glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
> > floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
> > floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
> > somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
> > makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
> > should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
> > no matter what you do.
>
> > Any thoughts on this?
>
> > Frank(TA)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Frank, I agree with Curt Lewis that perhaps a 5 OR 10 mile radius
would be less confusing. I would also emphasize that it would be a
good idea for the CD to have a good discussion of the rule on the
first day that T-storms are possible. I can attest to the fact that 5
miles was not enough on the day in question. In my case, 10 miles
would have been plenty but you have to be tuned in to the fact that a
safety finish may be called, have a good understanding of the rule and
then the CD has to call it at the first signs of approaching danger.
That in itself is very difficult because these cells have a way of
developing so fast.

JIm Price - 77

[Papa3]

On Sep 8, 8:38 am, wrote:
> On Sep 8, 1:07 am, CLewis95 > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Frank,
>
> > My circumstances were identical to yours that day.
>
> > Keeping the 5sm radius as a minimum, and specifying a maximum radius
> > the CD can call, is well worth considering. The only issue I can see
> > is the clear communicating of the "CD chosen" radius along with the
> > announcement that the Safety Finish was in effect. I remember how
> > hectic the radio traffic was during that time. This could be helped a
> > little by allowing only 5 or 10 (and/or 15?) mile radii to be called
> > by CD. Pilots could anticipate one of these values...as opposed to
> > listening for and clearly understanding for example a "7 mile safety
> > finish is in effect" from the CD.
>
> > Great issue for more discussion.
>
> > Curt - 95
>
> > On Sep 7, 1:57 pm, Frank > wrote:
>
> > > As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
> > > Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
> > > modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
> > > regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
> > > thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
> > > for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
> > > modification.
>
> > > Background:
>
> > > On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
> > > storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
> > > return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
> > > safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
> > > cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
> > > located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
> > > 200ft/mile.
>
> > > About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
> > > landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
> > > was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
> > > a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.
>
> > > Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
> > > applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
> > > enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
> > > across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
> > > wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.
>
> > > At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
> > > home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
> > > situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
> > > nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
> > > airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
> > > felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
> > > ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
> > > and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
> > > to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
> > > Several other pilots related similar stories.
>
> > > After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
> > > 'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
> > > been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
> > > surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
> > > floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
> > > 'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.
>
> > > So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
> > > decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
> > > activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
> > > to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
> > > glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
> > > floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
> > > floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
> > > somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
> > > makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
> > > should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
> > > no matter what you do.
>
> > > Any thoughts on this?
>
> > > Frank(TA)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Frank, I agree with Curt Lewis that perhaps a 5 OR 10 mile radius
> would be less confusing. I would also emphasize that it would be a
> good idea for the CD to have a good discussion of the rule on the
> first day that T-storms are possible. I can attest to the fact that 5
> miles was not enough on the day in question. In my case, 10 miles
> would have been plenty but you have to be tuned in to the fact that a
> safety finish may be called, have a good understanding of the rule and
> then the CD has to call it at the first signs of approaching danger.
> That in itself is very difficult because these cells have a way of
> developing so fast.
>
> JIm Price - 77- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

It's a tough situation. In 20 years of racing I've never been in a
situation where the safety finish was in effect. So, many (most?) of
us probably are only vaguely aware that the option exists and have
only a loose grasp on the rule.

I think the comments so far make sense. Is there anything that we
could do to reduce/eliminate the mental gymnastics required to figure
out the floor of the cone? It's all very simple sitting here at the
dining room table with coffee in hand, but under the gun with a Cu
Nimb staring you in the face...

I'm thinking maybe in terms of the inverted layer cake approach which
typifies Class B and C airspace. The likely options are 5, 10, and
15 mile radius cylinders. The minumum altitude at each would be set
at the appropriate glideslope beforehand.

Since there's no competitive advantage to going any further than the
outer radius of the cylinder, having a cone rather than a layer cake
doesn't really make practical sense to me.

P3

[Frank[_1_]]

>
> It's a tough situation. In 20 years of racing I've never been in a
> situation where the safety finish was in effect. So, many (most?) of
> us probably are only vaguely aware that the option exists and have
> only a loose grasp on the rule.

Wow! I've personally experienced at least three different 'safety
fiinish' situations in eastern regionals and nationals. Come to think
of it, two of these were at CCSC - maybe my home soaring area isn't
quite as benign as I think! ;-).

Regarding the altitudes, it really doesn't make too much difference.
When you are faced with the situation, you get as much altitude as you
can, and then try and nick the cylinder without scaring yourself too
badly. Personally I like the cone idea, as it is easy to remember '5
miles per thousand feet'. With the current 5sm radius cylinder, If
you are more than 1000' above the home field (and this is usually easy
to confirm with the flight computer), you are good to go. At 10
miles, you need twice that. In between, you have to interpolate, but
its not too bad. Also, if the rule were very simple (like 200ft/
mile), then it might be possible to program it into soaring software
so you could simply enable a checkbox to change the glide calculations
from whatever you have as a polar to show '200ft per mile'.

Just my $0.02

Frank(TA)

[Papa3]

On Sep 8, 11:08 am, Frank > wrote:

> Regarding the altitudes, it really doesn't make too much difference.
In between, you have to interpolate, but its not too bad. Also, if
the rule were very simple (like 200ft/
> mile), then it might be possible to program it into soaring software
> so you could simply enable a checkbox to change the glide calculations
> from whatever you have as a polar to show '200ft per mile'.
>
> Just my $0.02
>
> Frank(TA)

But that's the rub. Again "not too bad" is a relative term. With
high workload and stressful conditions, I've seen plenty of people
lose the ability to do even simple math. My thought is that just
having one number to worry about (e.g. 10 miles and 1550 on the
altimeter) makes it much easier. I can't see any scenario where it
would be worthwhile to go to, say, 7 miles and then try to climb up,
especially when the conditions warrant a safety finish at 10 miles.
No?

As far as having "soaring software" to accomodate this stuff, it's
becoming a non-trivial exercise to support all of the various rules
for different countries. All the more reason to make it a KISS
rule.

P3

[[email protected]]

> But that's the rub. Again "not too bad" is a relative term. With
> high workload and stressful conditions, I've seen plenty of people
> lose the ability to do even simple math. My thought is that just
> having one number to worry about (e.g. 10 miles and 1550 on the
> altimeter) makes it much easier. I can't see any scenario where it
> would be worthwhile to go to, say, 7 miles and then try to climb up,
> especially when the conditions warrant a safety finish at 10 miles.
> No?

I'm just guessing here, but isn't the point behind the downward slope
to the cylinder to keep pilots who are below the floor from having to
glide all the way to the airport to get a finish? With a flat floor
you end up having to find a thermal (possibly under an overcast) to
reach the floor or do a normal finish at ground zero. So say the
safety cylinder is 10 miles and 2000' and you are at 1900' with no
possibility of climbing. What would you do? The temptation would be to
try to get home.

I'm also guessing that the reason the safety cylinder wasn't
originally conceived with the possibility for a larger radius is to
keep from catching too many pilots between the safety cylinder and the
finish line when it is invoked by the CD. I can imagine all kinds of
protests in that scenario.

9B

[[email protected]]

On Sep 7, 2:57 pm, Frank > wrote:
> As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
> Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
> modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
> regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
> thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
> for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
> modification.
>
> Background:
>
> On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
> storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
> return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
> safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
> cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
> located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
> 200ft/mile.
>
> About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
> landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
> was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
> a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.
>
> Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
> applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
> enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
> across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
> wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.
>
> At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
> home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
> situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
> nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
> airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
> felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
> ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
> and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
> to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
> Several other pilots related similar stories.
>
> After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
> 'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
> been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
> surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
> floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
> 'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.
>
> So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
> decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
> activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
> to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
> glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
> floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
> floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
> somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
> makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
> should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
> no matter what you do.
>
> Any thoughts on this?
>
> Frank(TA)

Why not let the pilot pick it?
Then nobody has to exercise judgement or pay a penalty for not doing
so.
I admit to being a bit sarcastic with my friend Franks suggestion but
have a problem with this kind of thinking.
Each of us must make judgements on each flight about compromising
"safety" for more points.
Consider another pilot on the same day. He saw the weather developing
and flew his task in a manner that permitted him to make a finish at
the home airport without all the terror reported by some others. He
finished well before the assigned task time and risked a big score
penalty in the interest of a safer flight.
Should we penalize him on the score sheet because he did not continue
to tempt the storm?
I think not.
Biased observation- I was that pilot.
Most of those at CCSC who scared themselves would probably admit to
some judgement error when they put on their honest hat.
Others flew on hoping for a miracle to get them a finish after they
flew too long. Pigs get slaughtered.
Possibly an option of 5 or 10 miles makes some sense, but my
experience is that one can usually find a safe way to get a safety
finish within the 5 mile radius. If you can't, either you exercised
poor judgement( TAT type day where you can quit), or you were just
unlucky.
The safety finish was created in response to watching "GPS Final
Glides" in storms at Uvalde and has served us pretty well.
I just hope we don't get too carried away with dumbing down our sport.
Airmanship Matters.
The RC will be considering this at the Fall meeting.
Good discussion.
UH

[BB]

After hearing about this event from several of my buddies who were
there, I wrote the rules committee with my views on it. As usual,
these are suggestions, not a campaign platform, and I'm curious what
others think of them.

Short version: keep the 5 mile safety finish as is. Expanding it adds
a hornets nest of problems and just turns the race into a crapshoot.
Add an explicit provision that the CD may call off the task, even if
the start gate has opened, if it is impossible to complete the task
safely or legally. I wasn't there, so I don't know if this was the
right decision at Cesar Creek, but the events suggest that this is a
tool the CD should have

Here's what I wrote the RC:

No need to rehash here the events of Cesar Creek this year. Last
year, Cesar Creek also had two days of severe thunderstorms with mass
landouts, and similarly miraculous lack of major damage. The
thunderstorm day at Tonopah 15M is also relevant for our thinking
here. I gather there were also a few days at Uvalde 15M in which lines
of thunderstorms blocked legs, and many pilots who finished did so by
taking substantial risks.

Proposal: Explicitly allow the CD to call off the task, even if the
start has opened.

The CD has this authority now, since there is no rule against it. If
anything happens, you can be sure that the FAA, NTSB, and lawyers will
think the CD had the authority to get on the radio and stop the race.
Let's clarify this fact so that worrying about the rules doesn't cloud
what is already a hard decision for CDs.

I know that some people will worrry that CDs will be too quick to call
off the task. For that reason, and because few CDs will have much
personal experience with this kind of rare extreme weather, the rule
should come with explicit guidelines in the CD guide or the appendix
to the rules. I'd write this:

The task should be called off if it cannot be completed safely and
legally. Examples include widespread thunderstorms, squall lines,
tornadoes, strong turbulence, extensive IFR conditions, or extreme
winds, that pilots cannot avoid, either because such conditions block
a mandatory leg, or because they will cover the 5 mile safety-finish
radius around the finish airport.

The point is both to encourage pilots to land rather than press on in
such conditions, and to ensure a fair contest. We don't want to award
points for flying in obviously dangerous conditions such as these.

Isolated thunderstorms are avoidable, an accepted part of contest
soaring, and should not cause cancellation of the task, even if pilots
must make substantial detours to avoid them, or wait for them to
pass. The safety finish should be used rather than day cancellation
if the airport is unsafe, but safe conditions exist within 5 miles of
the airport. Task cancellation should be reserved for unsafe or
illegal weather, not weak weather.

The task should not be called off once the minimum time of a TAT or
MAT has expired, or once any pilot has completed an assigned task. In
these cases, canceling the day is unfair to pilots who recognized the
potential for severe weather and started early. It was possible to
complete the task. Task cancellation should not unfairly reward late
starters.

When there is the potential for severe weather, the CD should monitor
weather radar and reports. In such conditions, the CD is encouraged to
report severe weather by radio to pilots, and to allow pilots to relay
this information.

Of course, pilots must bear the ultimate responsibility for the
decision to abandon the task in severe weather, and should be reminded
of this fact. The CD cannot evaluate conditions on course as well as
pilots can do so. The fact that the CD has not called off the task is
no guarantee that conditions are safe!

(end of suggested guidelines)


I do not like the idea of expanding the safety finish, which is a
competing proposal for dealing with this issue. First of all, if it's
unsafe in the last 5 miles, it's probably not that great in the last
10 miles either. Second, this doesn't deal with squall lines etc. on
course, or widespread bad weather. Third, the fundamental point is
fairness - the day should be canceled, really, because it's unfair to
race in blatantly dangerous conditions. If we open the "finish" to 10
or even 20 miles, or suddenly allow people to drift downwind for
distance points, we make a mockery of the race. The poor guy who
sacrificed a lot of speed to get upwind and make the 1 or 5 mile
finish, or set up to get around the thunderstorm, now gets destroyed
if the gamblers who went downwind suddenly get a break and don't have
to make the last 10 or 20 miles. If we have to resort to these sorts
of "finishes", we should just get out of the business of racing and
awarding points.

I worded this rule as "call off the task" not "call off the day". At
Tonopah, the right thing to do was to recall the gliders, do a roll
call that everyone had made it back, and then attempt a new task off
to the southwest, where conditions were fine. It might not work; you
might not get everyone back for a fair start. But the rules should not
disallow it if it can happen.


John Cochrane

[Ray Lovinggood]

One point of discussion in our little group has been:
How do you determine your height above the ground?
Altimeter? Pressure altitude? But there's a big
storm there. What's happened to the pressure? What's
the effect to the altitude shown on your altimeter?

GPS altitude? Which of our GPS's show gps and/or pressure
altitude?

BB suggested allowing the CD to call off the task.
This means you have to have your radio turned on.
Up to the pilot to keep the radio on.

Dang hard for me to thermal, especially when digging
out, which I find myself doing a lot, with the radio
on.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[5Z]

On Sep 11, 11:06 am, Ray Lovinggood
> GPS altitude? Which of our GPS's show gps and/or pressure
> altitude?

It's not going to change by more than a few hundred feet, so as in any
other altitude restrictions, just add a personal fudge factor.

> BB suggested allowing the CD to call off the task.
> This means you have to have your radio turned on.
> Up to the pilot to keep the radio on.

It should already be on in case another nearby pilot needs to make a
safety call to you.

> Dang hard for me to thermal, especially when digging
> out, which I find myself doing a lot, with the radio
> on.

Remind me to stay clear of you in thermals! See above. I'm serious.

-Tom

[[email protected]]

Tom,

When I'm low and digging out, I don't need the distraction of the
radio. I just want to hear the vario and look outside. And when I'm
low, there's nobody down with me. Granted, in a contest, there's not
much going on over 123.3, except when you hear competitors calling in
"four miles" and "finish". When I'm digging out, hanging on by
fingernails, I don't need to hear that. Radio is off. But when I'm
up and when I suspect or know other gliders could be around or are
around, I'll have the radio on.

I've never had the "pleasure" of "digging out" with company. If I
ever do, the radio will be on.

And don't worry about flying with me. If we ever ended up at the same
contest, you would have to do a 180, hold your binoculars up, and look
way back along the course you just flew and way down. Also, look for
the non-moving glider on the ground.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA

[Ray Lovinggood]

Tom,

When I'm low and digging out, I don't need the distraction
of the radio. I just want to hear the vario and look
outside. And when I'm low, there's nobody down with
me. Granted, in a contest, there's not much going
on over 123.3, except when you hear competitors calling
in 'four miles' and 'finish'. When I'm digging out,
hanging on by fingernails, I don't need to hear that.
Radio is off. But when I'm up and when I suspect
or know other gliders could be around or are around,
I'll have the radio on.

I've never had the 'pleasure' of 'digging out' with
company. If I ever do, the radio will be on.

And don't worry about flying with me. If we ever ended
up at the same contest, you would have to do a 180,
hold your binoculars up, and look way back along the
course you just flew and way down. Also, look for
the non-moving glider on the ground.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA


At 17:31 11 September 2007, 5z wrote:
>On Sep 11, 11:06 am, Ray Lovinggood
>> GPS altitude? Which of our GPS's show gps and/or pressure
>> altitude?
>
>It's not going to change by more than a few hundred
>feet, so as in any
>other altitude restrictions, just add a personal fudge
>factor.
>
>> BB suggested allowing the CD to call off the task.
>> This means you have to have your radio turned on.
>> Up to the pilot to keep the radio on.
>
>It should already be on in case another nearby pilot
>needs to make a
>safety call to you.
>
>> Dang hard for me to thermal, especially when digging
>> out, which I find myself doing a lot, with the radio
>> on.
>
>Remind me to stay clear of you in thermals! See above.
> I'm serious.
>
>-Tom
>
>

[Ray Lovinggood]

Tom,

When I'm low and digging out, I don't need the distraction
of the radio. I just want to hear the vario and look
outside. And when I'm low, there's nobody down with
me. Granted, in a contest, there's not much going
on over 123.3, except when you hear competitors calling
in 'four miles' and 'finish'. When I'm digging out,
hanging on by fingernails, I don't need to hear that.
Radio is off. But when I'm up and when I suspect
or know other gliders could be around or are around,
I'll have the radio on.

I've never had the 'pleasure' of 'digging out' with
company. If I ever do, the radio will be on.

And don't worry about flying with me. If we ever ended
up at the same contest, you would have to do a 180,
hold your binoculars up, and look way back along the
course you just flew and way down. Also, look for
the non-moving glider on the ground.

Ray Lovinggood
Carrboro, North Carolina, USA


At 17:31 11 September 2007, 5z wrote:
>On Sep 11, 11:06 am, Ray Lovinggood
>> GPS altitude? Which of our GPS's show gps and/or pressure
>> altitude?
>
>It's not going to change by more than a few hundred
>feet, so as in any
>other altitude restrictions, just add a personal fudge
>factor.
>
>> BB suggested allowing the CD to call off the task.
>> This means you have to have your radio turned on.
>> Up to the pilot to keep the radio on.
>
>It should already be on in case another nearby pilot
>needs to make a
>safety call to you.
>
>> Dang hard for me to thermal, especially when digging
>> out, which I find myself doing a lot, with the radio
>> on.
>
>Remind me to stay clear of you in thermals! See above.
> I'm serious.
>
>-Tom
>
>

[Karl Striedieck]

Frank's suggestion of increasing the radius of the safety finish cone looks
like a good idea. If the concept (avoiding cu nims) is valid then the rule
should be structured to deal with the realities of meteorology. The Ohio
situation shows that the distance parameter (5 miles) is insufficient.

Extending the 20:1 minimum slope out another 5 miles will not give any
advantage because the scoring formula uses a speed of 60mph from the safety
fix home, while most gliders would actually be doing 40%-80% faster than
this. There is also the time "penalty" incurred due to the requirement to
climb higher than necessary, so it's a double whammy. The pilot has to "tank
up" but then doesn't get to convert the extra energy to speed.

If a pilot has flown a task such that she has achieved sufficient (and then
some) energy to get home, the rest is not a test of skill.

As for the luck factor of leaving "responsibly" early on a storm day, the
safety finish eliminates at least some of the storm-induced luck.

And without an adequate rule we are forcing pilots to make life (not going
into the storm) and death (while-knuckling home) choices. There are enough
other hazards in even a benign cross country flight that we shouldn't be
forcing folks to make a choice about flying into hazardous weather close to
the ground.

Karl Striedieck


"5Z" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Sep 11, 11:06 am, Ray Lovinggood
>> GPS altitude? Which of our GPS's show gps and/or pressure
>> altitude?
>
> It's not going to change by more than a few hundred feet, so as in any
> other altitude restrictions, just add a personal fudge factor.
>
>> BB suggested allowing the CD to call off the task.
>> This means you have to have your radio turned on.
>> Up to the pilot to keep the radio on.
>
> It should already be on in case another nearby pilot needs to make a
> safety call to you.
>
>> Dang hard for me to thermal, especially when digging
>> out, which I find myself doing a lot, with the radio
>> on.
>
> Remind me to stay clear of you in thermals! See above. I'm serious.
>
> -Tom
>

[John Godfrey (QT)]

Since I am a candidate for the rules committee, and I have received a
number of private inquiries as to my position on this issue I thought
I would post my thoughts publically. If you agree with my position
(or just my reasoning process) you can vote me in ;)

I'll start with my opinions - but please read my reasoning:

1. The CD should not be able to change the safety finish radius
after the task has begun.

2. If the CD is allowed to chage it before the start it must be
required to be on the task sheet. I would vote no on a proposal to
allow this.

3. I don't think making the radius larger will dimish dangerous
behavior, but making the defined radius 10 miles is ok with me.

4. The safety finish, like the rolling finish should always be
available to the pilot at the pilot's discretion, albeit with a
slightly bigger scoring disincentive than the rolling finish.

5. For the sports class or any other time a cylinder finish is used,
the safety finish should be referenced to the cylinder height/radius.

On the face of it it seems like a no-brainer to allow the CD to
increase the radius of the safety finish in a case like the day at the
Sports Nationals. However as usual, the devil is in the details.

My base philosophy is that all competition rules, and especially those
related to flying the task should be as simple as possible with as
few "special cases" as possible - particularily once the task has
begun. KISS - especially since IQ seems to dive with canopy closure.

I was a contestant at the Sports Nationals on the day Frank writes
about. Also, I had a much too "up close an personal" encounter with
lightning for my taste while the safety finish was in effect (by
trying to make it to the field after doing a safety finish). So the 5
mile radius was not an issue in this case for me. By the accounts of
other pilots, at this contest the existance of the safety finish did
not effectively prevent the dangerous approach/landing behavior that
UH states it is for ("The safety finish was created in response to
watching "GPS Final Glides" in storms at Uvalde"). Except we were not
at Uvalde.

Now consider the following scenario. Competitors are returning on the
final leg of the task, coming from the East. From the West a 10 mile
radius thunderstorm is approaching the finish. At what point should
the CD open the safety finish and at what radius? Probably just as
the storm hits the airport 5 miles is enough. But then it needs to
keep increasing until it is maybe up to 20 miles. How does the CD
figure this all out in good time and effectively communicate it to
the pilots involved? Should the CD change the radius two or three
times?

I just don't see any right answer here, just lots of opportunities for
creating confusion.

Except for the safety finish, any changes to the task parameters once
gliders are launched require a roll call. The roll call ensures a
fair competition by making sure each pilot acknowledges receipt of
the revised information. However, it is impractical (and not a good
idea) to try to do a roll call for a safety finish; but the absence of
a roll call also introduces a potential unevenness in the playing
field since all pilots may not receive the information that the safety
finish is in effect.

Lots of things can make radio comms poor once out on course. Also at
the contest in question, the issue of communicating with the pilots
was complicated by one contestant having a radio that not only had a
chronically stuck mike (over a number of days) but also was so poor
that it spilled over onto 123.5. We were not able to do roll calls to
amend the task. It is fortunate that some were able to discern that
that safety finish was on, albeit with numerous transmissions for
clarification. Successfully communicating a radius would have been
very iffy.

So I do not like the idea of changing any task paramaters after the
task opens, in the interest of fairness and simplicity. This would
include the safety finish radius. This also argues that the safety
finish should be like the rolling finish - always available at the
pilot's discretion, but with an implicit scoring penalty (non
draconian) for using it.

Next is the basic concept of the safety finish. I see the safety
finish as a way of saying "If it is safe to approach the field (your
judgement) but not to land there, you can still get a 'gimme' on the
finish if you get withing 5 miles at a slope better than 200 feet per
mile." The concept of the "gimme" is important here. Everyone makes a
1 inch putt. Virtually all make a 6 inch putt. Even pros miss the
occasional 1 footer, etc. So at some radius the safety finish impacts
the skill-based part of the competition outcome.

I don't think there is any concept in the rules that supports the
philosophy that if you can make it to a proper final glide, the rules
should provide for you to get a speed finish in virtually all cases.

Also nowhere does it say that because the safety finish is in effect
it must therefore be safe to approach the airport within the radius.
That is a judgement exclusively for the pilot to make.

If the task was a TAT, with a ten mile TP circle that became
completely obliterated by a passing cell, I doubt anyone would argue
that the CD should be able to change that radius at that time so
pilots would not have to incur delays waiting to get in the circle.
Why should the finish be any different?

One of the elements of the competition is dealing with adverse weather
and after all, you get lots of lattitude in choosing the time you
start.

Lastly, the scoring rules are evolving to reduce the penalty for an
outlanding - which also makes safe behavior less costly.

Thanks for reading.
John Godfrey (QT)

[[email protected]]

I have thought a lot on this issue following that day. For me, the
safety cylinder didn't feel very safe. After trying to get into it,
and missing by less than a mile after things go so violent I sobered
up and turned around, I turned back for the last airport on course.
By the time I got there, the winds were gusting a 25+. Half of the 7
ships trying to land there were on 123.3, the other half on 123.0, the
field frequency. Turned final into "head-on" traffic, moved over, and
landed on top of a hill next to the airport (less than 100ft of "peak"
before a 200 foot dropoff).

Personally, I'd like to see the rule change in two ways:

1) Extend the safety cylinder to 10 miles (per TA, KS and others).
Some will say this requires too much "calculating" in the cockpit to
determine if you are above the 26:1 glide slope, but almost all modern
flight computers tell you L/D to a point, even Garmin handheld. If
you don't have one, get one. Or, cheaper yet, make yourself a "whiz-
wheel."
2) Specifically allow the CD to call of a day (BB's sugestion).

I considered adding a 3rd suggestion, such that if the safety cylinder
is activated less than 45 minutes before the minimum task time is up
from the point the task opened, the day is automatically scrubbed.
This was the situation at CCSC, where, if memory serves, the safety
cylinder was activated approx. 1 hour after the gate opened with 1
hour left for any competitor to achieve minimum time. This would put
CD's in the position, however, of trying to wait till that threshold
to get in a day to call the safety finish, however, and I think it may
be counter productive.

2C

[HL Falbaum]

QT wrote below--

I agree that the safety finish should always be an option. I would add a
variable, pilot selected, ad hoc, radius because the options are not always
the same. i.e. poor terrain for landing, dead air where the storm has been,
etc

If the pilot is above a slope that could lead him/her home easily, then
count 60 mph from where the flight breaks off toward an airport for landing,
turns around or goes clearly off course for a thermal. The scoring program
can figure a "constructive landout" so this could be programmed about the
same way. The safety slope is 26.4:1 (about McC 3.5-4 in a modern glider).
So calculate the closest point to the home field, above the 200ft/mi
glideslope and project 60 mph from there. There is of course an opportunity
to cheat here if one encounters heavy sink on final glide. Just bail out and
land and you get speed points at 60 mph. So, perhaps, the rule must include
a provision that a TSTM be in the way somehow.

The scoring disincentive is the 60 mph. It is rare that a modern glider
can't do much better than that on final.


Hartley Falbaum
DG 808C "KF" USA



"John Godfrey (QT)" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Since I am a candidate for the rules committee, and I have received a


"4. The safety finish, like the rolling finish should always be
available to the pilot at the pilot's discretion, albeit with a
slightly bigger scoring disincentive than the rolling finish.

5. For the sports class or any other time a cylinder finish is used,
the safety finish should be referenced to the cylinder height/radius."

[Brian[_1_]]

> 4. The safety finish, like the rolling finish should always be
> available to the pilot at the pilot's discretion, albeit with a
> slightly bigger scoring disincentive than the rolling finish.
>
<snip>
IMO the rolling finish should be eliminated now that we have GPS
finishes and we should simply apply a speed penalty for finishing low.
For example a 1 MPH penalty per 100 feet below the finish.. With the
current finish you can have a glider racing to the landing area
through a group of gliders that have already finished and are trying
to land normally. It seems to me that once you cross the finish line
either high or low the race should be over and pilots should
concentrate entirely on landing safely and not still be racing.

> My base philosophy is that all competition rules, and especially those
> related to flying the task should be as simple as possible with as
> few "special cases" as possible - particularily once the task has
> begun. KISS - especially since IQ seems to dive with canopy closure.
>
<snip>

I agree with the KISS principle. It seems to me the simplest way to do
this is make a very large radius safety finish. As previously
mentioned once the pilot has acheived a final glide to the airport the
race is basically over and there is little point in requiring the
pilot to fly the final glide when there is a safety issue involved. I
would recommend considering setting the safety finish radius at 50
miles and have the finish point be the point where the pilot acheives
the 200' per mile glide angle within that 50 mile radius.

I am still trying to decide if I think the speed should just be time
and distance to the finish point or to apply the 1 minute per mile
penalty to the normal finish line.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
HP16T "V6"