Seniors USA 2009 Start and Finish notes..... # 711 reporting

[[email protected]]

What we saw on the new start at the Seniors was in simple
words....works great, will be good for along time. Just a note you
might want to remember. When you leave threw the top, make sure your
flown distance agrees with the distance given you by the scorer. Most
of us found a good thermal, dropped down into the cylinder for our 2
minutes below MSH and then thermaled up in the thermal, staying below
cloud base and left on course.

On the finish. Now, this is for you, Joe the sailplane racers, you
need to slow down before crossing into the finish cylinder at the
minium finish height. Your altimeter will read wrong at the end of the
day and your logger will lag when you cross into the cylinder. We saw
alot of finish penalities of 10 to 30 points because some guys were
coming in at 130 KTS and crossing into the clyinder at what their
altimeter said. Well, we all were warned its best to slow down before
crossing into the cylinder at least 10 seconds before you get their
and don't count on your altimeter to read correctly at the end of the
day. You will lose the fight with the scorer as he uses your logger
and what it reads as your altitude when you finish. He DOESN'T see
your cockpit altimeter when you finish.

That about covers the new start and finish. We had limited internet
coverage here at the Seniors and posting news and information was not
easy. I did try and post the last day information, but I couldn't get
service. My next stop is Perry and hopefully will be able to update my
blog with daily news.

Also, for those who race sports class, new 2009 handicaps need to be
checked. Its best to take your given handicap speed and divide by the
raw speed on your score sheet to see if your handicap is correct. It
might be a tad off because of the weight adjustment, but if its alot
off, either way, bring it to the attention of the scorer. This may be
best by writing down your case as then it will be addressed.

Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe. #711 reporting.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 10:09šam, wrote:

> When you leave threw the top, make sure your
> flown distance agrees with the distance given you by the scorer.>
>
> Its best to take your given handicap speed and divide by the
> raw speed on your score sheet to see if your handicap is correct.


In other words:

Winscore - äÏ×ÅÒÑÊ, ÎÏ ÐÒÏ×ÅÒÑÊ (Trust but verify)

Guy Byars

[John Cochrane]

> What we saw on the new start at the Seniors was in simple
> words....works great, will be good for along time.

If Tom is happy, it must be working well!

>
> On the finish. Now, this is for you, Joe the sailplane racers, you
> need to slow down before crossing into the finish cylinder at the
> minium finish height. Your altimeter will read wrong at the end of the
> day and your logger will lag when you cross into the cylinder. We saw
> alot of finish penalities of 10 to 30 points because some guys were
> coming in at 130 KTS and crossing into the clyinder at what their
> altimeter said.

Just to clarify this, you should get the more favorable of takeoff
altimeter setting or finish altimeter setting. This is (I hope) about
the difference between mechanical altimeter and pressure in the
logger, not about pressure change during the day. If you look at
(say) the 302 altitude display and it says 501' above takeoff height,
you should be ok. Of course, none of us is silly enough to be staring
at instruments as we enter crowded airspace, and we all leave a 50
foot margin, right?

John Cochrane

[Steve Koerner]

just thinking... It would be really cool if the score sheet included
an indication of exactly where in the cyclinder the start was
calculated from. This could be expressed as a bearing and radius
from the center of the cylinder. Examples: 164 deg, 3.82 mi. for an
out-the-top start or 88 deg, 5.00 mi for a start out the perimeter.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 17, 8:14*am, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> Just to clarify this, you should get the more favorable of takeoff
> altimeter setting or finish altimeter setting. This is (I hope) about
> the difference between mechanical altimeter and pressure in the
> logger, not about pressure change during the day. *If you look at
> (say) the 302 altitude display and it says 501' above takeoff height,
> you should be ok. *Of course, none of us is silly enough to be staring
> at instruments as we enter crowded airspace, and we all leave a 50
> foot margin, right?
>
> *John Cochrane

In Arizona I see up to 100ft difference between pressure altitude at
takeoff and pressure altitude on landing. The altimeter reads high at
the end of the day.

If the rule allows most favorable of takeoff or landing setting that
seems to mean anyone setting their altimeter to the local setting on
final glide may finish up to 100ft higher than they need to.

Wouldn't it be better for the finish to be based on landing pressure
altitude and for the contestants to be provided a local altimeter
setting as part of the finish briefing.


Andy

[Curt[_2_]]

On Mar 17, 9:09*am, wrote:
..
..
> Well, we all were warned its best to slow down before
> crossing into the cylinder at least 10 seconds before you get their
> and don't count on your altimeter to read correctly at the end of the
> day.
..
..
> Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe. #711 reporting.

I expect to hear/see a LOT of comments on this practice being
encouraged. Isn't this the most dangerous aspect of using a Finish
Cylinder? ... pilots focusing on the "top" of the invisible cylinder
wall and pulling up in front fo other finishers who are trying to see
the same invisible wall "top"? ... using different altimeter
readings? ...using relatively coarse GPS location and readout
delays? ... at ~ 200fps?

Disclaimer - If the above stated warning from contest officials was
recommending that pilots "slow down" not by changing their glideslope
(pulling up) but by deploying airbrakes to give their altimeters time
to catch up, .. then I retract my comment :)

Curt "still slightly favoring a Finsh Line" Lewis - 95

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 12:35*pm, Curt > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:09*am, wrote:
> .
> .> Well, we all were warned its best to slow down before
> > crossing into the cylinder at least 10 seconds before you get their
> > and don't count on your altimeter to read correctly at the end of the
> > day.
>
> .
> .
>
> > Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe. #711 reporting.
>
> I expect to hear/see a LOT of comments on this practice being
> encouraged. *Isn't this the most dangerous aspect of using a Finish
> Cylinder? ... pilots focusing on the "top" of the invisible cylinder
> wall and pulling up in front fo other finishers who are trying to see
> the same invisible wall "top"? ... using different altimeter
> readings? ...using relatively coarse GPS location and readout
> delays? ... at ~ 200fps?
>
> Disclaimer - If the above stated warning from contest officials was
> recommending that pilots "slow down" not by changing their glideslope
> (pulling up) but by deploying airbrakes to give their altimeters time
> to catch up, .. then I retract my comment :)
>
> Curt "still slightly favoring a Finsh Line" Lewis - 95


Maybe we should require that you be < 100 kts and above the minimum
finish height for two minutes prior to finish. [Sarcasm intended]

I'd suggest that a gentle pull up is preferable to pulling the
brakes. The common sense approach to finishing is to visually acquire
any traffic that's called in ahead of you (4 miles out). If you can't
ID the traffic, maintain a reasonable cruise speed (staying higher
than you might otherwise) and keep looking. Do that and you shouldn't
have a conflict. If you suspect you might have a conflict, well, get
on the radio.

Being 20 seconds slow (due to finishing high) costs you < 2 points.
Cheap insurance.

I really miss those old finish gate runs. That was a lot of fun.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 12:35*pm, Curt > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:09*am, wrote:
> .
> .> Well, we all were warned its best to slow down before
> > crossing into the cylinder at least 10 seconds before you get their
> > and don't count on your altimeter to read correctly at the end of the
> > day.
>
> .
> .
>
> > Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe. #711 reporting.
>
> I expect to hear/see a LOT of comments on this practice being
> encouraged. *Isn't this the most dangerous aspect of using a Finish
> Cylinder? ... pilots focusing on the "top" of the invisible cylinder
> wall and pulling up in front fo other finishers who are trying to see
> the same invisible wall "top"? ... using different altimeter
> readings? ...using relatively coarse GPS location and readout
> delays? ... at ~ 200fps?
>
> Disclaimer - If the above stated warning from contest officials was
> recommending that pilots "slow down" not by changing their glideslope
> (pulling up) but by deploying airbrakes to give their altimeters time
> to catch up, .. then I retract my comment :)
>
> Curt "still slightly favoring a Finsh Line" Lewis - 95

Maybe we should require that you be < 100 kts and above the minimum
finish height for two minutes prior to finish. [Sarcasm intended]

I'd suggest that a gentle pull up is preferable to pulling the
brakes. It's easier to see from behind, easier to predict what you're
going to do next (easier to gauge the energy state of a glider pulling
up than one with its brakes open) and it doesn't pin your head to the
canopy.

What you hope is that the guy following you is flying sensibly. My
common sense approach to finishing is to visually acquire
any traffic that's called in ahead of you (4 miles out). If you can't
ID the traffic, maintain a reasonable cruise speed (staying higher
than you might otherwise) and keep looking. Do that and you shouldn't
have a conflict. If you suspect you might have a conflict, well, get
on the radio.

Being 20 seconds slow (due to finishing high) costs you < 2 points.
Cheap insurance.

I really miss those old finish gate runs. That was a lot of fun.

Evan Ludeman / T8

[[email protected]]

On Mar 17, 12:35*pm, Curt > wrote:
> On Mar 17, 9:09*am, wrote:
> .
> .> Well, we all were warned its best to slow down before
> > crossing into the cylinder at least 10 seconds before you get their
> > and don't count on your altimeter to read correctly at the end of the
> > day.
>
> .
> .
>
> > Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe. #711 reporting.
>
> I expect to hear/see a LOT of comments on this practice being
> encouraged. *Isn't this the most dangerous aspect of using a Finish
> Cylinder? ... pilots focusing on the "top" of the invisible cylinder
> wall and pulling up in front fo other finishers who are trying to see
> the same invisible wall "top"? ... using different altimeter
> readings? ...using relatively coarse GPS location and readout
> delays? ... at ~ 200fps?
>
> Disclaimer - If the above stated warning from contest officials was
> recommending that pilots "slow down" not by changing their glideslope
> (pulling up) but by deploying airbrakes to give their altimeters time
> to catch up, .. then I retract my comment :)
>
> Curt "still slightly favoring a Finsh Line" Lewis - 95

This was not suggesting hard pull up.
Best solution I've found is get to my finish altitude(50 to 100 ft
above cylinder) a mile or so out and coast in at constant altitude
gradually slowing. If I hit it right, I cross at exactly my average
speed for the day(this never happens but I'm usually 80 mph or so).
Most of the errors seem to be related to cockpit static used for most
altimeters causing pilots to miss height.
There is a provision for using landing baro pressure before issuing
finish height score adjustments due to changes during the day. Scorer
has to do this manually as I understand it.
UH

[John Cochrane]

> This was not suggesting hard pull up.
> Best solution I've found is get to my finish altitude(50 to 100 ft
> above cylinder) a mile or so out and coast in at constant altitude
> gradually slowing. If I hit it right, I cross at exactly my average
> speed for the day(this never happens but I'm usually 80 mph or so).
> Most of the errors seem to be related to cockpit static used for most
> altimeters causing pilots to miss height.
> UH

This is so good it's worth repeating: DON'T DO BIG PULLUPS AT THE
FINISH CIRCLE. Or pushoevers for that matter. You cannot see who is
above and behind you if you pull up, you cannot see who is below you
in a push over. If you pull up, the glider above you cannot see you at
all. There are other gliders at the finish gate! I have had a glider
appear out of nowhere from above and behind just at the finish circle,
needing a sharp negative g push from me to avoid. I've heard several
other stories, like gliders appearing from nowhere just off the nose.
Looking sideways too might not be such a bad idea either.

Hank's method is more efficient, much safer, and keeps his eyes out of
the cockpit. Amen brother Hank!

John Cochrane

[hretting]

What has worked for me is to crank DOWN my altimeter 125' at the
beginning of final glide along with closing the airvents (noise),
turning on the seat belt sign, and battening down the hatches. I'll be
damned if I don't see the altimeter on field elevation at the stops.
R

[bildan]

On Mar 17, 3:45*pm, hretting > wrote:
> What has worked for me is to crank DOWN my altimeter 125' at the
> beginning of final glide along with closing the airvents (noise),
> turning on the seat belt sign, and battening down the hatches. I'll be
> damned if I don't see the altimeter on field elevation at the stops.
> R

Am I the only one wondering why not just get a current altimeter
setting from a local AWOS or such? I suppose there are contest sites
so remote there are none.

[hretting]

Why do that Bubba when I just gave you a simpler way. In 25 contests ,
it has never failed. We're not talking take-off in Miami and landing
in Anchorage.
R

[Karl Striedieck]

Maybe I'm missing something, but the I believe Tom (and the CD at the
Seniors) are mistaken in regard to any altimeter error due to ram air static
pressure. The faster the speed the higher the pressure in the cockpit and
thus the lower the reading on the altimeter. In other words as you go faster
you get a "safety" factor on the altimeter and should finish a couple feet
higher than indicated.

As to the comments on the danger of collisions at the finish, they are worth
attention. A few years ago at the Seniors I was close to the finish in a
DG-1000 when another glider overtook us and flew directly over our canopy
about 30 feet up. Had I eased off the airspeed just a little.... I don't
want to think about it. Incidentally, the owner, worth billions (invented
Netscape) was in the back seat and any resulting legal action might have
been nasty.

Karl Striedieck


> wrote in message
...
> What we saw on the new start at the Seniors was in simple
> words....works great, will be good for along time. Just a note you
> might want to remember. When you leave threw the top, make sure your
> flown distance agrees with the distance given you by the scorer. Most
> of us found a good thermal, dropped down into the cylinder for our 2
> minutes below MSH and then thermaled up in the thermal, staying below
> cloud base and left on course.
>
> On the finish. Now, this is for you, Joe the sailplane racers, you
> need to slow down before crossing into the finish cylinder at the
> minium finish height. Your altimeter will read wrong at the end of the
> day and your logger will lag when you cross into the cylinder. We saw
> alot of finish penalities of 10 to 30 points because some guys were
> coming in at 130 KTS and crossing into the clyinder at what their
> altimeter said. Well, we all were warned its best to slow down before
> crossing into the cylinder at least 10 seconds before you get their
> and don't count on your altimeter to read correctly at the end of the
> day. You will lose the fight with the scorer as he uses your logger
> and what it reads as your altitude when you finish. He DOESN'T see
> your cockpit altimeter when you finish.
>
> That about covers the new start and finish. We had limited internet
> coverage here at the Seniors and posting news and information was not
> easy. I did try and post the last day information, but I couldn't get
> service. My next stop is Perry and hopefully will be able to update my
> blog with daily news.
>
> Also, for those who race sports class, new 2009 handicaps need to be
> checked. Its best to take your given handicap speed and divide by the
> raw speed on your score sheet to see if your handicap is correct. It
> might be a tad off because of the weight adjustment, but if its alot
> off, either way, bring it to the attention of the scorer. This may be
> best by writing down your case as then it will be addressed.
>
> Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe. #711 reporting.

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 8:04�am, "Karl Striedieck" > wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but the I believe Tom (and the CD at the
> Seniors) are mistaken in regard to any altimeter error due to ram air static
> pressure. The faster the speed the higher the pressure in the cockpit and
> thus the lower the reading on the altimeter. In other words as you go faster
> you get a "safety" factor on the altimeter and should finish a couple feet
> higher than indicated.
>
> As to the comments on the danger of collisions at the finish, they are worth
> attention. A few years ago at the Seniors I was close to the finish in a
> DG-1000 when another glider overtook us and flew directly over our canopy
> about 30 feet up. Had I eased off the airspeed just a little.... I don't
> want to think about it. Incidentally, the owner, worth billions (invented
> Netscape) was in the back seat and any resulting legal action might have
> been nasty.
>
> Karl Striedieck
>
> > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
> > What we saw on the new start at the Seniors was in simple
> > words....works great, will be good for along time. Just a note you
> > might want to remember. When you leave threw the top, make sure your
> > flown distance agrees with the distance given you by the scorer. Most
> > of us found a good thermal, dropped down into the cylinder for our 2
> > minutes below MSH and then thermaled up in the thermal, staying below
> > cloud base and left on course.
>
> > On the finish. Now, this is for you, Joe the sailplane racers, you
> > need to slow down before crossing into the finish cylinder at the
> > minium finish height. Your altimeter will read wrong at the end of the
> > day and your logger will lag when you cross into the cylinder. We saw
> > alot of finish penalities of 10 to 30 points because some guys were
> > coming in at 130 KTS and crossing into the clyinder at what their
> > altimeter said. Well, we all were warned its best to slow down before
> > crossing into the cylinder at least 10 seconds before you get their
> > and don't count on your altimeter to read correctly at the end of the
> > day. You will lose the fight with the scorer as he uses your logger
> > and what it reads as your altitude when you finish. He DOESN'T see
> > your cockpit altimeter when you finish.
>
> > That about covers the new start and finish. We had limited internet
> > coverage here at the Seniors and posting news and information was not
> > easy. I did try and post the last day information, but I couldn't get
> > service. My next stop is Perry and hopefully will be able to update my
> > blog with daily news.
>
> > Also, for those who race sports class, new 2009 handicaps need to be
> > checked. Its best to take your given handicap speed and divide by the
> > raw speed on your score sheet to see if your handicap is correct. It
> > might be a tad off because of the weight adjustment, but if its alot
> > off, either way, bring it to the attention of the scorer. This may be
> > best by writing down your case as then it will be addressed.
>
> > Thermal tight, Soar high, Fly safe. #711 reporting.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes, I was quoting the CD, and when I think about it, Karl's right, my
bad. When flying from a low to a high, the altimeter reads low and
your higher than you altimeter shows. When flying from a high to a
low, the altimeter reads high and your lower than shown...old saying
is high to low, look out below.

I do think almost all altimeters are hooked up to the glider static
anyway, so really, vent air shouldn't even come into play.

Our glider altimeters just don't offer the precession (non electric
and non viabrating and we don't have radar altimeters ...yet.) to cut
the finish height so close.

Its easier to judge the 50 foot height when using a finish line and
yes, more fun. But , with the finish circle and finish height, you
need to be on the safe side, as if you get a finish penalty, its their
on your logger and won't get removed.

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 17, 2:45*pm, hretting > wrote:
> What has worked for me is to crank DOWN my altimeter 125' at the
> beginning of final glide along with closing the airvents (noise),
> turning on the seat belt sign, and battening down the hatches. I'll be
> damned if I don't see the altimeter on field elevation at the stops.
> R

That's consistent with my observations. If I don't have a local
altimeter setting I reduce my altimeter my 100ft at start of final
glide.

This gives a conservative final glide but those that don't do that
have a hundred foot advantage over us at the finish since they will be
scored based on the takeoff altimeter setting.

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 17, 2:53*pm, bildan > wrote:
> Am I the only one wondering why not just get a current altimeter
> setting from a local AWOS or such? *I suppose there are contest sites
> so remote there are none.

This only works of course if the altimeter calibration is accurate. I
suspect that most glider pilots set field elavation on takeoff and do
not not check that the baro setting matches the local altimeter
setting. If there is an offset then that same offset has to be
applied before using a local altimeter setting for final glide.

I became aware that my Winter altimeter setting was not accurate when
I saw large discrepancies between the settings of the Winter and my
302. I had to have my Winter rebuilt to fix the problem.

The 100ft offset method works even if the altimeter calibration is
horribly wrong.

Andy

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 18, 5:04*am, "Karl Striedieck" > wrote:
> Maybe I'm missing something, but the I believe Tom (and the CD at the
> Seniors) are mistaken in regard to any altimeter error due to ram air static
> pressure. The faster the speed the higher the pressure in the cockpit and
> thus the lower the reading on the altimeter. In other words as you go faster
> you get a "safety" factor on the altimeter and should finish a couple feet
> higher than indicated.

If it is true that cockpit pressure increases with speed then, at high
speed, loggers with no external static connection will read lower that
an altimeter which has an external static connection. This may result
in the logger showing a finish below gate altitude while the altimeter
indicated a safe margin above.

Anyone know for sure that cockpit pressure does actually increase at
high speed?

Andy

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 6:43*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 5:04*am, "Karl Striedieck" > wrote:
>
> > Maybe I'm missing something, but the I believe Tom (and the CD at the
> > Seniors) are mistaken in regard to any altimeter error due to ram air static
> > pressure. The faster the speed the higher the pressure in the cockpit and
> > thus the lower the reading on the altimeter. In other words as you go faster
> > you get a "safety" factor on the altimeter and should finish a couple feet
> > higher than indicated.
>
> If it is true that cockpit pressure increases with speed then, at high
> speed, loggers with no external static connection will read lower that
> an altimeter which has an external static connection. *This may result
> in the logger showing a finish below gate altitude while the altimeter
> indicated a safe margin above.
>
> Anyone know for sure that cockpit pressure does actually increase at
> high speed?
>
> Andy

Well at least on some gliders you have the air holes in in the luggage
shelf blocked (all it takes is a jacket or similar jammed in there)
and open the front vent you can feel the pressure increase.

It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of the
instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 7:00*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 6:43*am, Andy > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 5:04*am, "Karl Striedieck" > wrote:
>
> > > Maybe I'm missing something, but the I believe Tom (and the CD at the
> > > Seniors) are mistaken in regard to any altimeter error due to ram air static
> > > pressure. The faster the speed the higher the pressure in the cockpit and
> > > thus the lower the reading on the altimeter. In other words as you go faster
> > > you get a "safety" factor on the altimeter and should finish a couple feet
> > > higher than indicated.
>
> > If it is true that cockpit pressure increases with speed then, at high
> > speed, loggers with no external static connection will read lower that
> > an altimeter which has an external static connection. *This may result
> > in the logger showing a finish below gate altitude while the altimeter
> > indicated a safe margin above.
>
> > Anyone know for sure that cockpit pressure does actually increase at
> > high speed?
>
> > Andy
>
> Well at least on some gliders you have the air holes in in the luggage
> shelf blocked (all it takes is a jacket or similar jammed in there)
> and open the front vent you can feel the pressure increase.
>
> It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
> Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
> cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of the
> instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
> requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
> line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.
>
> Darryl

Oh and this explains the warnings from knowledgeable CDs. Increased
cockpit ambient pressure, the logger will read record lower, while
your altimeter will say you are OK. And as mentioned, since you are
descending any lag or stickiness in the altimeter will also err to the
pilot's disadvantage.

Darryl

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 18, 7:00*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
> Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
> cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of the
> instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
> requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
> line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.

I'm aware of that but I see now that what I wrote may be ambiguous.
Perhaps this would have been better:

"loggers (which cannot have an external static connection) will read
lower than
an altimeter which has an external static connection. "


Andy

[Jim White[_3_]]

Perhaps the simple answer is to mount your colibri on the panel and use the
logged altitude reading as your reference for starts, airspace, and
finishes. You do however need to know the difference in feet +/- between
real QNH/QFE and QNE (1013.2). I write this on a sticky.

Jim


At 14:31 18 March 2009, Andy wrote:
>On Mar 18, 7:00=A0am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>
>> It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
>> Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
>> cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of the
>> instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
>> requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
>> line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.
>
>I'm aware of that but I see now that what I wrote may be ambiguous.
>Perhaps this would have been better:
>
>"loggers (which cannot have an external static connection) will read
>lower than
>an altimeter which has an external static connection. "
>
>
>Andy
>

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 18, 11:15*am, Jim White > wrote:
> Perhaps the simple answer is to mount your colibri on the panel and use the
> logged altitude reading as your reference for starts, airspace, and
> finishes. You do however need to know the difference in feet +/- between
> real QNH/QFE and QNE (1013.2). I write this on a sticky.
>
> Jim
>
> At 14:31 18 March 2009, Andy wrote:
>
> >On Mar 18, 7:00=A0am, Darryl Ramm *wrote:
>
> >> It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
> >> Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
> >> cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of the
> >> instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
> >> requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
> >> line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.
>
> >I'm aware of that but I see now that what I wrote may be ambiguous.
> >Perhaps this would have been better:
>
> >"loggers (which cannot have an external static connection) will read
> >lower than
> >an altimeter which has an external static connection. "
>
> >Andy

I have performed a number of tests on this subject and found that the
big variable is how the cockpit air is vented. On some gliders the
cockpit pressure will be negative and some will be positive. Closing
the vents will tend to drive cockpit pressure negative and therefore
raise the apparent altitude.

Brian Utley

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 7:31*am, Andy > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 7:00*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
> > Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
> > cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of the
> > instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
> > requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
> > line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.
>
> I'm aware of that but I see now that what I wrote may be ambiguous.
> Perhaps this would have been better:
>
> "loggers (which cannot have an external static connection) will read
> lower than
> an altimeter which has an external static connection. "
>
> Andy

Andy, I had the sense you did know this. My comment was really to the
overall thread. The near universal situation will be IGC logger with
ambient cockpit pressure (an IGC requirement) and an altimeter with
ships' static (a type certification/airworthiness requirement for many
(all?) gliders). In which case the warnings from the CD make perfect
sense.

A Cambridge 302 or other IGC flight recorder that displays pressure
altitude or a PDA with pressure altitude being displayed from a logger
is the thing to look at if close. But looking for traffic better be
more important. Doing a comparison between an altimeter and Cambridge
302 pressure altitude display at different speeds would be interesting
and something I want to do for other reasons (but related to ambient
cockpit pressure induced altitude errors).

Hopefully most pilots will understand many gliders will have three
static sources, the fuselage static lines (for altimeter and ASI),
static from a multi-function probe (usually for flight computers/
direct reading/digital varios) and ambient cockpit static (used by IGC
fight recorders). Pretty nice redundancy and isolation provided by all
that.

Darryl

[[email protected][_2_]]

Oh great, now we are down to fiddling with altimeters, closing/opening
cockpit vents, and staring at a variety of altitude readouts (I
personally watch both the mechanical altimeter, after tapping, and my
SN10 digital readout) while on short final glide.

I still think there is a better (safer, easier) way, just haven't
figured it out yet.

Kirk
66

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 9:33*am, " >
wrote:
> Oh great, now we are down to fiddling with altimeters, closing/opening
> cockpit vents, and staring at a variety of altitude readouts (I
> personally watch both the mechanical altimeter, after tapping, and my
> SN10 digital readout) while on short final glide.
>
> I still think there is a better (safer, easier) way, just haven't
> figured it out yet.
>
> Kirk
> 66

And the issue there is that most SN10s will be installed with the
static connected to the ship's static (that's what the manual says,
and is probably best for accurate wind calculations etc.) and AFAIK is
not able to display any pressure altitude delivered via NMEA from an
attached IGC flight recorder. So the SN10 is normally not sensing
cockpit ambient and unable to report what any attached IGC flight
recorder is sensing.

Hopefully the take away here is more allow a saftey margin and do soem
tests before hand rather than watch some stupid display while killing
yourself and others at a finish.


Darryl

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 12:47*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 9:33*am, " >
> wrote:
>
> > Oh great, now we are down to fiddling with altimeters, closing/opening
> > cockpit vents, and staring at a variety of altitude readouts (I
> > personally watch both the mechanical altimeter, after tapping, and my
> > SN10 digital readout) while on short final glide.
>
> > I still think there is a better (safer, easier) way, just haven't
> > figured it out yet.
>
> > Kirk
> > 66
>
> And the issue there is that most SN10s will be installed with the
> static connected to the ship's static (that's what the manual says,
> and is probably best for accurate wind calculations etc.) and AFAIK is
> not able to display any pressure altitude delivered via NMEA from an
> attached IGC flight recorder. So the SN10 is normally not sensing
> cockpit ambient and unable to report what any attached IGC flight
> recorder is sensing.
>
> Hopefully the take away here is more allow a saftey margin and do soem
> tests before hand rather than watch some stupid display while killing
> yourself and others at a finish.
>
> Darryl

Maybe us cheap guys are doing better with this. My PDA is hooked up
to my logger and uses its output for altitude, so in theory I'm seeing
what's going into the logger file, no matter what static source is
being used for that (or GPS altitude for that matter). All I have to
do is
just fly the final glide numbers so I arrive above the required finish
altitude.

-- Matt

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 12:33*pm, " >
wrote:
> Oh great, now we are down to fiddling with altimeters, closing/opening
> cockpit vents, and staring at a variety of altitude readouts (I
> personally watch both the mechanical altimeter, after tapping, and my
> SN10 digital readout) while on short final glide.
>
> I still think there is a better (safer, easier) way, just haven't
> figured it out yet.
>
> Kirk
> 66

I say we put a big laser level on a ballon and tether it over the
airport. Like a omni-directional PAPI. If you see the red light, you
are too low :-)

Todd
3S

[Tim Newport-Peace[_3_]]

At 16:15 18 March 2009, Jim White wrote:
>Perhaps the simple answer is to mount your colibri on the panel and use
the
>logged altitude reading as your reference for starts, airspace, and
>finishes. You do however need to know the difference in feet +/- between
>real QNH/QFE and QNE (1013.2). I write this on a sticky.
>
>Jim
>
>
>At 14:31 18 March 2009, Andy wrote:
>>On Mar 18, 7:00=A0am, Darryl Ramm wrote:
>>
>>> It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
>>> Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
>>> cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of
the
>>> instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
>>> requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
>>> line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.
>>
>>I'm aware of that but I see now that what I wrote may be ambiguous.
>>Perhaps this would have been better:
>>
>>"loggers (which cannot have an external static connection) will read
>>lower than
>>an altimeter which has an external static connection. "
>>
>>
>>Andy
>>
>
Just to put the record straight, since AL4 (25 May 2001) Pitot Static MAY
be used. However some older designs may still be using Cockpit Static.

/*Quote

Pressure Altitude - In a GNSS FR, this is a five numeric group indicating
the pressure altitude in metres with respect the International Standard
Atmosphere (ISA) used in aviation, to a sea level datum of 1013.25 HPa.
The pressure recorded in the *.IGC file may either be "cockpit static"
(vented within the FR box), or use a tube connection to the pressure from
glider instrument system static tubing. If the pressure altitude signal
within the FR is used for other purposes such as cockpit instrument
readings which can be set to other datums such as
QNH or QFE, a one-way transmission system must be used from the sensor so
that the IGC file always records the required ISA to the 1013 sea level
datum irrespective of other settings used for flight instruments. The
permitted use of instrument-static is intended for a GNSS FR mounted in
the instrument panel. With such an installation, an OO as part of the
inspection of the FR installation must check the tubing and the pressure
connection to the FR to ensure that they will be out-of-reach of the
aircrew in flight. This is to prevent alteration to the IGC-file pressure
altitude record by any method. (AL4)

Unquote*/

Tim Newport-Peace &gt;
Skype: specialist_systems
http://www.spsys.demon.co.uk/icom.htm

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 9:47*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:

> And the issue there is that most SN10s will be installed with the
> static connected to the ship's static (that's what the manual says,
> and is probably best for accurate wind calculations etc.) and AFAIK is
> not able to display any pressure altitude delivered via NMEA from an
> attached IGC flight recorder. So the SN10 is normally not sensing
> cockpit ambient and unable to report what any attached IGC flight
> recorder is sensing.
>
> Hopefully the take away here is more allow a saftey margin and do soem
> tests before hand rather than watch some stupid display while killing
> yourself and others at a finish.
>
> Darryl

Ugh - now I have to go run experiments to see what generates the
lowest cockpit ambient pressure across different speeds and vent
configurations.

Since the official altitude for finishes is the logger baro altitude I
just fly that. I guess I could worry about the 100 feet or so of
pressure error - it's worth maybe 15-20 seconds in theory. If I were
going to reset my logger's altimeter I'd want to do it at the start of
my final glide, not the end. I suppose it would be okay for the CD to
call altimeter setting in addition to winds for finishers, but I'm not
sure it's worth the trouble.

Also, I don't recall whether my computer uses baro or GPS altitude for
calculating final glides, but it has never been so far off from the
logger baro readout that I can't just do what UH suggests in the last
mile or so - bleeding off speed to hold altitude as indicated by the
302 display, which is quite easy to scan.

The comments by UH, BB and others are REALLY important - staying on a
predictable track during the last part of final glide is a critical
safety practice. Thrashing around when you are low and fast is a
recipe for something really bad.

Also, an evil thought occurred to me - does Winscore check to see
whether you reset the logger altimeter between when you finish and
when you land? It strikes me you could finish really low then crank
the altimeter setting down 500 feet before you land. I'd guess someone
thought of that already and eliminated that opportunity for mischief.

9B

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 10:15*am, Tim Newport-Peace > wrote:
> At 16:15 18 March 2009, Jim White wrote:
>
> >Perhaps the simple answer is to mount your colibri on the panel and use
> the
> >logged altitude reading as your reference for starts, airspace, and
> >finishes. You do however need to know the difference in feet +/- between
> >real QNH/QFE and QNE (1013.2). I write this on a sticky.
>
> >Jim
>
> >At 14:31 18 March 2009, Andy wrote:
> >>On Mar 18, 7:00=A0am, Darryl Ramm *wrote:
>
> >>> It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
> >>> Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
> >>> cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of
> the
> >>> instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
> >>> requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
> >>> line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.
>
> >>I'm aware of that but I see now that what I wrote may be ambiguous.
> >>Perhaps this would have been better:
>
> >>"loggers (which cannot have an external static connection) will read
> >>lower than
> >>an altimeter which has an external static connection. "
>
> >>Andy
>
> Just to put the record straight, since AL4 (25 May 2001) Pitot Static MAY
> be used. However some older designs may still be using Cockpit Static.
>
> /*Quote
>
> Pressure Altitude - In a GNSS FR, this is a five numeric group indicating
> the pressure altitude in metres with respect the International Standard
> Atmosphere (ISA) used in aviation, to a sea level datum of 1013.25 HPa.
> The pressure recorded in the *.IGC file may either be "cockpit static"
> (vented within the FR box), or use a tube connection to the pressure from
> glider instrument system static tubing. If the pressure altitude signal
> within the FR is used for other purposes such as cockpit instrument
> readings which can be set to other datums such as
> QNH or QFE, a one-way transmission system must be used from the sensor so
> that the IGC file always records the required ISA to the 1013 sea level
> datum irrespective of other settings used for flight instruments. The
> permitted use of instrument-static is intended for a GNSS FR mounted in
> the instrument panel. With such an installation, an OO as part of the
> inspection of the FR installation must check the tubing and the pressure
> connection to the FR to ensure that they will be out-of-reach of the
> aircrew in flight. This is to prevent alteration to the IGC-file pressure
> altitude record by any method. (AL4)
>
> Unquote*/
>
> Tim Newport-Peace &gt;
> Skype: specialist_systemshttp://www.spsys.demon.co.uk/icom.htm

Oops. Thanks.

And hopefully the ultimate thing is to point people to their the IGC
approval document for their flight recorder (see (http://www.fai.org/
gliding/gnss/), all the ones I've looked at (C302, LX series, and even
the new Triadis) use the cockpit ambient pressure. Without looking
though all the approval documents, does anybody know of ones that do
use the static line?


Darryl

[[email protected]]

>
> Also, an evil thought occurred to me - does Winscore check to see
> whether you reset the logger altimeter between when you finish and
> when you land? It strikes me you could finish really low then crank
> the altimeter setting down 500 feet before you land. I'd guess someone
> thought of that already and eliminated that opportunity for mischief.

For start and finish altitudes, Winscore checks the pressure altitude
as recorded in the secure data logger. I don't know of any secure
loggers that would permit you to "reset the logger altimeter" between
finish and landing.

Guy Byars

[Karl Striedieck]

The time saved by trying to finish right at the min finish height is
miniscule compared to the time used in getting that extra "waisted" altitude
in the last thermal.

The bottom line is that pilots should aim for around 150 feet high and
during the last couple miles spend 99% of the time looking
right/left/up/down/forward/back. As pointed out earlier, monitoring the
four-mile calls is useful.

Karl Striedieck


"Darryl Ramm" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 18, 7:31 am, Andy > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 7:00 am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > It is my impression that many piltos with built in loggers like the
> > Cambridge 302 do not understand that the flight recorder is using
> > cockpit ambient pressure and not the static line-in on the rear of the
> > instrument (only used for airspeed calculations). This is a
> > requirement to prevent the pilot being able to connect to the static
> > line and tamperer with logged pressure altitude.
>
> I'm aware of that but I see now that what I wrote may be ambiguous.
> Perhaps this would have been better:
>
> "loggers (which cannot have an external static connection) will read
> lower than
> an altimeter which has an external static connection. "
>
> Andy

Andy, I had the sense you did know this. My comment was really to the
overall thread. The near universal situation will be IGC logger with
ambient cockpit pressure (an IGC requirement) and an altimeter with
ships' static (a type certification/airworthiness requirement for many
(all?) gliders). In which case the warnings from the CD make perfect
sense.

A Cambridge 302 or other IGC flight recorder that displays pressure
altitude or a PDA with pressure altitude being displayed from a logger
is the thing to look at if close. But looking for traffic better be
more important. Doing a comparison between an altimeter and Cambridge
302 pressure altitude display at different speeds would be interesting
and something I want to do for other reasons (but related to ambient
cockpit pressure induced altitude errors).

Hopefully most pilots will understand many gliders will have three
static sources, the fuselage static lines (for altimeter and ASI),
static from a multi-function probe (usually for flight computers/
direct reading/digital varios) and ambient cockpit static (used by IGC
fight recorders). Pretty nice redundancy and isolation provided by all
that.

Darryl

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 18, 12:06*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:47*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 9:33*am, " >
> > wrote:
>
> > > Oh great, now we are down to fiddling with altimeters, closing/opening
> > > cockpit vents, and staring at a variety of altitude readouts (I
> > > personally watch both the mechanical altimeter, after tapping, and my
> > > SN10 digital readout) while on short final glide.
>
> > > I still think there is a better (safer, easier) way, just haven't
> > > figured it out yet.
>
> > > Kirk
> > > 66
>
> > And the issue there is that most SN10s will be installed with the
> > static connected to the ship's static (that's what the manual says,
> > and is probably best for accurate wind calculations etc.) and AFAIK is
> > not able to display any pressure altitude delivered via NMEA from an
> > attached IGC flight recorder. So the SN10 is normally not sensing
> > cockpit ambient and unable to report what any attached IGC flight
> > recorder is sensing.
>
> > Hopefully the take away here is more allow a saftey margin and do soem
> > tests before hand rather than watch some stupid display while killing
> > yourself and others at a finish.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Maybe us cheap guys are doing better with this. *My PDA is hooked up
> to my logger and uses its output for altitude, so in theory I'm seeing
> what's going into the logger file, no matter what static source is
> being used for that (or GPS altitude for that matter). *All I have to
> do is
> just fly the final glide numbers so I arrive above the required finish
> altitude.
>
> -- Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Are you sure? My PDA is hooked to my IGC logger but gets only GPS
altitude, not the uncorrected pressure altitude that goes on the .igc
logfile and is used to score the finish (after correction for takeoff
pressure delta).

Kirk
66

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 10:24*am, wrote:
> On Mar 18, 9:47*am, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > And the issue there is that most SN10s will be installed with the
> > static connected to the ship's static (that's what the manual says,
> > and is probably best for accurate wind calculations etc.) and AFAIK is
> > not able to display any pressure altitude delivered via NMEA from an
> > attached IGC flight recorder. So the SN10 is normally not sensing
> > cockpit ambient and unable to report what any attached IGC flight
> > recorder is sensing.
>
> > Hopefully the take away here is more allow a saftey margin and do soem
> > tests before hand rather than watch some stupid display while killing
> > yourself and others at a finish.
>
> > Darryl
>
> Ugh - now I have to go run experiments to see what generates the
> lowest cockpit ambient pressure across different speeds and vent
> configurations.
>
> Since the official altitude for finishes is the logger baro altitude I
> just fly that. I guess I could worry about the 100 feet or so of
> pressure error - it's worth maybe 15-20 seconds in theory. If I were
> going to reset my logger's altimeter I'd want to do it at the start of
> my final glide, not the end. *I suppose it would be okay for the CD to
> call altimeter setting in addition to winds for finishers, but I'm not
> sure it's worth the trouble.
>
> Also, I don't recall whether my computer uses baro or GPS altitude for
> calculating final glides, but it has never been so far off from the
> logger baro readout that I can't just do what UH suggests in the last
> mile or so - bleeding off speed to hold altitude as indicated by the
> 302 display, which is quite easy to scan.
>
> The comments by UH, BB and others are REALLY important - staying on a
> predictable track during the last part of final glide is a critical
> safety practice. Thrashing around when you are low and fast is a
> recipe for something really bad.
>
> Also, an evil thought occurred to me - does Winscore check to see
> whether you reset the logger altimeter between when you finish and
> when you land? It strikes me you could finish really low then crank
> the altimeter setting down 500 feet before you land. I'd guess someone
> thought of that already and eliminated that opportunity for mischief.
>
> 9B

Winscore usually can't tell. The QNH setting is often not in an IGC
file and the recorded pressure altitude is always referenced to
standard pressure.

And before Tim corrects me (again) there is an "ATS" extension for
recording the QNH setting and a flight recorder could write that in an
E (pilot event) record to keep track of the settigns during flight. I
have no idea what flight recorders do this if any.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 10:49*am, " >
wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:06*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 12:47*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 9:33*am, " >
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > Oh great, now we are down to fiddling with altimeters, closing/opening
> > > > cockpit vents, and staring at a variety of altitude readouts (I
> > > > personally watch both the mechanical altimeter, after tapping, and my
> > > > SN10 digital readout) while on short final glide.
>
> > > > I still think there is a better (safer, easier) way, just haven't
> > > > figured it out yet.
>
> > > > Kirk
> > > > 66
>
> > > And the issue there is that most SN10s will be installed with the
> > > static connected to the ship's static (that's what the manual says,
> > > and is probably best for accurate wind calculations etc.) and AFAIK is
> > > not able to display any pressure altitude delivered via NMEA from an
> > > attached IGC flight recorder. So the SN10 is normally not sensing
> > > cockpit ambient and unable to report what any attached IGC flight
> > > recorder is sensing.
>
> > > Hopefully the take away here is more allow a saftey margin and do soem
> > > tests before hand rather than watch some stupid display while killing
> > > yourself and others at a finish.
>
> > > Darryl
>
> > Maybe us cheap guys are doing better with this. *My PDA is hooked up
> > to my logger and uses its output for altitude, so in theory I'm seeing
> > what's going into the logger file, no matter what static source is
> > being used for that (or GPS altitude for that matter). *All I have to
> > do is
> > just fly the final glide numbers so I arrive above the required finish
> > altitude.
>
> > -- Matt- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Are you sure? *My PDA is hooked to my IGC logger but gets only GPS
> altitude, not the uncorrected pressure altitude that goes on the .igc
> logfile and is used to score the finish (after correction for takeoff
> pressure delta).
>
> Kirk
> 66

It can depends on the flight recorder, settings in the flight recorder
as to what NMEA data is is outputting, PDA software features and
settings.

In my case with a C302 and SeeYou Mobile I don't think I can control
this, the C302 will put out pressure altitude in the NMEA stream and
SeeYou Mobile will use and display this pressure altitude.


Darryl

[hretting]

KIRK, If you go back a few replies, I close the vents to reduce noise.
At 130 kts and approaching the finish point, I don't want to miss an
important radio call. It was simply part of a pre-final glide cockpit
flow, and had nothing to do with all the altimeter/finish height
discussion.
Also, possibly crossing the finish 100' high by making a final glide
correction to the altimeter , as I have suggested will not have a
measurable impact on being a racing champion. Density altitude
increases as the day warms and 125' happens to be the normal , no TBs
at the field, everything okie dokie correction.
R

[Peter Wyld[_2_]]

>
>Are you sure? My PDA is hooked to my IGC logger but gets only GPS
>altitude, not the uncorrected pressure altitude that goes on the .igc
>logfile and is used to score the finish (after correction for takeoff
>pressure delta).
>
>Kirk
>66
>

What Software, What Logger ?

[Mike the Strike]

So, if I can summarize, the new start and finish rules result in the
following:

1) Your instruments may not show you the distance from the start to
the first turn.

2) Your instruments may not indicate the location of the finish.

3) Although it's a race, you may have to slow down at the finish.

Am I alone in thinking this a bit dumb-ass?

Thank goodness for OLC!

Mike

[[email protected]]

> Are you sure? *My PDA is hooked to my IGC logger but gets only GPS
> altitude, not the uncorrected pressure altitude that goes on the .igc
> logfile and is used to score the finish (after correction for takeoff
> pressure delta).

To determine the altitude for finish scoring purposes, Winscore (as
per SSA rules), uses the more favaorable of the takeoff pressure delta
and landing pressure delta.

Guy Byars

[Papa3]

On Mar 18, 1:24*pm, wrote:
>
> Also, an evil thought occurred to me - does Winscore check to see
> whether you reset the logger altimeter between when you finish and
> when you land? It strikes me you could finish really low then crank
> the altimeter setting down 500 feet before you land. I'd guess someone
> thought of that already and eliminated that opportunity for mischief.
>
> 9B

Um, huh? The only "setting" that you can do would be with regard to
what you're seeing presented to you in the various user-interfaces
(PDA, SN10, whatever). The secure logger records two altitudes
(pressure and GPS) independent of what you may be displaying. The
logged pressure is, as pointed out elsewhere, always referenced to the
same standard.

I think the confusion comes in whens someone goes into something like
Glide Navigator and fiddles with the altimeter setting. This has
zero impact on the data that is stored in the logger.

P3

[noel.wade]

On Mar 18, 12:06*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
> So, if I can summarize, the new start and finish rules result in the
> following:
>
> 1) Your instruments may not show you the distance from the start to
> the first turn.

Huh? Is there a _need_ to show this distance? Can't you see the
start cylinder on your moving map and make a mental note of the
distance to the next waypoint that you see flash up on the screen as
your little glider symbol crosses the cylinder edge? Or doesn't your
flight computer make a noise or pop up a note on the screen when you
exit the cylinder? I can get all of this with my PDA running XCSoar
(or SeeYou)...

And since you're now being given credit for the distance you fly (from
whatever point you exit the cylinder), things should actually be less-
hard... You no longer have to worry about being credit for distance
you didn't fly; or not getting credit for distance you _did_ fly (if
you exit out the back or something). So the strategy is simple: Fly
as fast and efficiently as you can (safely) from wherever you exit the
start cylinder until you make the first turnpoint. What's the
problem?

> 2) Your instruments may not indicate the location of the finish.

If you want to cut it down to a 1' margin, you are correct. Your
instruments may be off by 20 or 50 feet. How many times have you
landed at the end of the day and checked your altimeter? I bet it is
_not_ showing the same "field elevation" that you set when you took
off! It might be off by *gasp* 20 to 50 feet, or more!

I'm a computer professional by day - but flying is not a "digital"
realm. You make do and you leave a little bit of a margin, and you
live with it. What is the time cost for slowing down during the last
mile or two of your final glide... 5 to 10 seconds? OK, stretch that
out to 5 days of flying. You've now "lost" perhaps 30 - 45 seconds
(and you've guaranteed that you won't get a finishing penalty)...

How many of you experienced racers have lost a Regional or National
because of a cumulative 45 seconds or less over the _entire_ event?

Or to look at this another way: In the "olden days", how would you
determine whether you're inside the turnpoint radius (or within 1
degree of the sector edge) just by looking at a wing-tip photo? Can't
be accurate down to 1' or 1-degree there, either!


> 3) Although it's a race, you may have to slow down at the finish.

Yes, that's a bummer. But have you ever watched a NASCAR or Formula 1
race? Sure when they're all coming to the finish bunched up together
they push to the end - but when someone has a lead or they're coming
to the checkered flag one-at-a-time, they back off and ensure that
they make it safely across the finish.

As a newbie to the sport, would I *like* a chance to make a high speed
low pass as a part of the experience (OK, a few hundred feet off the
deck, for a modicum of safety)? Sure! But that's an ego/adrenaline
thing - it has nothing to do with determining who the best pilot is or
who wins the race. We can't survive a wreck or even a minor mishap
like the auto-racing folks can (I know, I used to race in NASCAR, the
SCCA, and a few other series), so sometimes we have to temper our
enthusiasm and back it off just enough to ensure that no more good
pilots die needlessly at the beginning or end of a contest flight.

--Noel
(Also a big fan of the OLC, for the record:
http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightbook.html?sp=2008&st=olc&rt=olc&pi=35474
)

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 18, 1:42*pm, hretting > wrote:
> KIRK, If you go back a few replies, I close the vents to reduce noise.
> At 130 kts and approaching the finish point, I don't want to miss an
> important radio call. It was simply part of a pre-final glide cockpit
> flow, and had nothing to do with all the altimeter/finish height
> discussion.
> Also, possibly crossing the finish 100' high by making a final glide
> correction to the altimeter , as I have suggested will not have a
> measurable impact on being a racing champion. Density altitude
> increases as the day warms and 125' happens to be the normal , no TBs
> at the field, everything okie dokie correction.
> R

R,

I do the same, pretty much; my point was that we have managed to come
up with a finish procedure that may lead some people to spend too much
head down time fiddling in the cockpit at a time they should be heads
up! And I don't want to hear that "it's only a few points" - I've
lost first place in a contest by one (1) point before, so every little
bit can count, if you are serious about the sport (at least XX used to
think that way).

When all this was discussed last year, I suggested setting up a finish
"band" - say from 500' to 300' agl, where the points penalty would
pretty much equal the time saved by not climbing those extra feet
before starting the final glide. That way, there would be no
effective reason for not climbing high enough to get a nice safe 500'
finish, and if you finished 75' low (at 425', in the band), no big
deal, but no advantage either. You would have to have a pretty severe
penalty for finishing below the lower (300'agl) limit, and have the
scoring system average your last actual climbs, to avoit a "cheater"
circle in zero sink, but I think this approach - shoot for a 300'
window - might cut down on the end of glide worries.

Better yet, bring back the 50' line!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 18, 1:45*pm, Peter Wyld > wrote:
> >Are you sure? *My PDA is hooked to my IGC logger but gets only GPS
> >altitude, not the uncorrected pressure altitude that goes on the .igc
> >logfile and is used to score the finish (after correction for takeoff
> >pressure delta).
>
> >Kirk
> >66
>
> What Software, What Logger ?

SeeYou Mobile on an Ipaq, logger is a Themi.

I don't bother with any airdata on the PDA, since I use it mainly as a
task map and landing option display.

My SN10 does all the airdata for me.

I prefer to keep them separate for redundancy, and prefer GPS altitude
for glides anyway!

Kirk

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 3:50*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:45*pm, Peter Wyld > wrote:
>
> > >Are you sure? *My PDA is hooked to my IGC logger but gets only GPS
> > >altitude, not the uncorrected pressure altitude that goes on the .igc
> > >logfile and is used to score the finish (after correction for takeoff
> > >pressure delta).
>
> > >Kirk
> > >66
>
> > What Software, What Logger ?
>
> SeeYou Mobile on an Ipaq, logger is a Themi.
>
> I don't bother with any airdata on the PDA, since I use it mainly as a
> task map and landing option display.
>
> My SN10 does all the airdata for me.
>
> I prefer to keep them separate for redundancy, and prefer GPS altitude
> for glides anyway!
>
> Kirk

And you don't have a choice with the Themi right? It does not output
pressure altitude NMEA data?

And would'nt it be nice if that SN10 output some of that airdata for
folks who do want to use a PDA. That way people can have flexibility
and the best of both worlds. A gripe of mine in rental gliders with
SN10s - but the easy solution is to pull out and toss away the SN10.

Darryl

[hretting]

The thing is Kirk is you didn't lose the contest by a single event,
but rather a culmination of many things. The finish problem is just
part of the Sea Trials necessary to usher in new safety-based rules.
Most of the frustrations will fall upon the Scorers and problem
solvers as they work the problems. Everyone will be hit with the same
challenges, and as in centering a thermal, you will have to figure out
how to work it to your advantage. I add 125'. Even though I prefer it,
the 50' line is a dying thermal.
As for slowing down before the finish, it was for 10 secs, not 1 to 2
miles. This is part of the on going research and will be ****-canned
before long. By slowing down you lose 3 secs. For a 2 hr sports class
contest day , that equates to 0.375pts. (7.5pts per min, or
7.5/60x3=0.375). Noel, are you keeping up? So, focus on the flying,
forget the finish and you'll be kicking butt.
Hey, did I get the math right? I ran out of toes.
R

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 18, 6:16*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 3:50*pm, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 1:45*pm, Peter Wyld > wrote:
>
> > > >Are you sure? *My PDA is hooked to my IGC logger but gets only GPS
> > > >altitude, not the uncorrected pressure altitude that goes on the .igc
> > > >logfile and is used to score the finish (after correction for takeoff
> > > >pressure delta).
>
> > > >Kirk
> > > >66
>
> > > What Software, What Logger ?
>
> > SeeYou Mobile on an Ipaq, logger is a Themi.
>
> > I don't bother with any airdata on the PDA, since I use it mainly as a
> > task map and landing option display.
>
> > My SN10 does all the airdata for me.
>
> > I prefer to keep them separate for redundancy, and prefer GPS altitude
> > for glides anyway!
>
> > Kirk
>
> And you don't have a choice with the Themi right? It does not output
> pressure altitude NMEA data?
>
> And would'nt it be nice if that SN10 output some of that airdata for
> folks who do want to use a PDA. That way people can have flexibility
> and the best of both worlds. *A gripe of mine in rental gliders with
> SN10s - but the easy solution is to pull out and toss away the SN10.
>
> Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Actually, the SN10 does output the data, I just do not choose to use
it - I trust my SN10 WAY MORE than my PDA!

To each his own, if you are throwing away an SN10 please toss it my
way...

Kirk
66

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 1:34*pm, Papa3 > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 1:24*pm, wrote:
>
>
>
> > Also, an evil thought occurred to me - does Winscore check to see
> > whether you reset the logger altimeter between when you finish and
> > when you land? It strikes me you could finish really low then crank
> > the altimeter setting down 500 feet before you land. I'd guess someone
> > thought of that already and eliminated that opportunity for mischief.
>
> > 9B
>
> Um, *huh? * The only "setting" that you can do would be with regard to
> what you're seeing presented to you in the various user-interfaces
> (PDA, SN10, whatever). * *The secure logger records two altitudes
> (pressure and GPS) independent of what you may be displaying. The
> logged pressure is, as pointed out elsewhere, always referenced to the
> same standard.
>
> I think the confusion comes in whens someone goes into something like
> Glide Navigator and fiddles with the altimeter setting. * * This has
> zero impact on the data that is stored in the logger.
>
> P3

That was my confusion - if Winscore is looking at uncorrected pressure
altitude then the QNH setting that affects what the pilot sees is
irrelevant. On the other hand if you start messing with that setting
in flight, you best have get it right or you will have no idea what
finish height to shoot for. From my perspective I'd rather not mess
with it. It's in the noise compared to other factors.

9B

[Darryl Ramm]

On Mar 18, 5:52*pm, " >
wrote:
> On Mar 18, 6:16*pm, Darryl Ramm > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 18, 3:50*pm, " >
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Mar 18, 1:45*pm, Peter Wyld > wrote:
>
> > > > >Are you sure? *My PDA is hooked to my IGC logger but gets only GPS
> > > > >altitude, not the uncorrected pressure altitude that goes on the .igc
> > > > >logfile and is used to score the finish (after correction for takeoff
> > > > >pressure delta).
>
> > > > >Kirk
> > > > >66
>
> > > > What Software, What Logger ?
>
> > > SeeYou Mobile on an Ipaq, logger is a Themi.
>
> > > I don't bother with any airdata on the PDA, since I use it mainly as a
> > > task map and landing option display.
>
> > > My SN10 does all the airdata for me.
>
> > > I prefer to keep them separate for redundancy, and prefer GPS altitude
> > > for glides anyway!
>
> > > Kirk
>
> > And you don't have a choice with the Themi right? It does not output
> > pressure altitude NMEA data?
>
> > And would'nt it be nice if that SN10 output some of that airdata for
> > folks who do want to use a PDA. That way people can have flexibility
> > and the best of both worlds. *A gripe of mine in rental gliders with
> > SN10s - but the easy solution is to pull out and toss away the SN10.
>
> > Darryl- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Actually, the SN10 does output the data, I just do not choose to use
> it - I trust my SN10 WAY MORE than my PDA!
>
> To each his own, if you are throwing away an SN10 please toss it my
> way...
>
> Kirk
> 66

Sorry my bad. Yes, and it is documented on Dave's web site. I was
getting confused, my frustration is that the SN-10 does not output TAS
data so that PDA software cannot independently calculate the best wind
vector possible (esp. non circling). An easy way to allow existing
software to work would be to output TAS just like a C302.

Darryl

[[email protected][_2_]]

Noel, some comments:

> > 2) Your instruments may not indicate the location of the finish.
>
> If you want to cut it down to a 1' margin, you are correct. *Your
> instruments may be off by 20 or 50 feet. *How many times have you
> landed at the end of the day and checked your altimeter? *I bet it is
> _not_ showing the same "field elevation" that you set when you took
> off! *It might be off by *gasp* *20 to 50 feet, or more!
>
> I'm a computer professional by day - but flying is not a "digital"
> realm. *You make do and you leave a little bit of a margin, and you
> live with it. *What is the time cost for slowing down during the last
> mile or two of your final glide... 5 to 10 seconds? *OK, stretch that
> out to 5 days of flying. *You've now "lost" perhaps 30 - 45 seconds
> (and you've guaranteed that you won't get a finishing penalty)...
>
> How many of you experienced racers have lost a Regional or National
> because of a cumulative 45 seconds or less over the _entire_ event?
>

If you haven't already, may I suggest you read Moffat's Winning on the
Wind (original or revised); he has a great chapter on how to win by
minimizing lost seconds here and there. And yes, it is very easy to
lose by 45 seconds, over the whole race! Bottom line, every second
counts, and giving some away just because we have rules that specify a
vague finish location is a poor way to run a contest, IMHO.


> > 3) Although it's a race, you may have to slow down at the finish.
>
> Yes, that's a bummer. *But have you ever watched a NASCAR or Formula 1
> race? *Sure when they're all coming to the finish bunched up together
> they push to the end - but when someone has a lead or they're coming
> to the checkered flag one-at-a-time, they back off and ensure that
> they make it safely across the finish.

But in NASCAR or F1 you can see what your place is, in real time. In
a glider contest (unless using Grand Prix rules) you have only a vague
idea if you are doing overall, and really no idea if you are beating
the glider next to you at the finish. So you really can't "just back
off and make it safely across the finish". The tradeoff is that you
can't finish too low and get a penalty, so you have to balance finish
speed with altitude and try for the best compromise. In a perfect
world, with a perfect computer, you would leave your last thermal at
exactly the height necessary to fly your final glide at the correct
speed for the Mc setting to arrive at the very bottom of the finish
circle (501'), compensated for the difference in pressure altitude
between takeoff and landing, etc... Not quite as easy to visualize as
crossing a finish line at 50', like in the good old days!!!


>
> As a newbie to the sport, would I *like* a chance to make a high speed
> low pass as a part of the experience (OK, a few hundred feet off the
> deck, for a modicum of safety)? *Sure! *But that's an ego/adrenaline
> thing - it has nothing to do with determining who the best pilot is or
> who wins the race. *We can't survive a wreck or even a minor mishap
> like the auto-racing folks can (I know, I used to race in NASCAR, the
> SCCA, and a few other series), so sometimes we have to temper our
> enthusiasm and back it off just enough to ensure that no more good
> pilots die needlessly at the beginning or end of a contest flight.


What we forget is what was lost when gate starts and line finishes
were done away with: the sense of participation for our crew and
friends, who used to work those essential features of the races.

I don't have hard numbers, but I bet the attendance at contests by
crew has dropped over 50% since the bad old days - it has in my
experience in local contests in AZ.

Bit of a shame, that.

Kirk

Anyone for a Retro race? 3000' Start Gate ("Ready...Mark, good
start!"), assigned speed tasks only, have to fly around the turnpoint
throught a photosector, and a 50 finish line? And no whining?

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 19, 8:06*am, " >
wrote:
> Anyone for a Retro race? *3000' Start Gate ("Ready...Mark, good
> start!"), assigned speed tasks only, have to fly around the turnpoint
> throught a photosector, and a 50 finish line? *And no whining?-
>

Your memory of the old days is fading. We had a turnpoint and a photo
target. Whether you flew round (outside) the turnpoint depended on
the relationship of the turnpoint and photo target to the task legs,
and on the technique used to position for the photo.

But I share the sentiment about line finishes. There was a pleasant
lack of ambiguity about what had to be achieved and for most finishes
it was all visual reference from 10 miles (or more) to the finish. In
addition there was a ground observer with a radio to provide alerts if
there was a traffic conflict that had not been seen by the involved
pilots. The line finish worked well and was safe if all contestants
flew the same assigned task. The risk went up if finishers could come
from different directions.

I never had a scare on a line finish and did not consider them unsafe.

Andy

[John Cochrane]

>
> I never had a scare on a line finish and did not consider them unsafe.
>
> Andy


The main reason for the higher finish is not really teh high - energy
low passt. There have been occasional problems and crashes with those,
but not really that many.

The real problem with low finishes is the occasional low energy
marginal final glide. There have been plenty of crashes in "fields"
1-2 miles from the airport, on the airport fence, and plenty more
crashes involving low energy over the airport itself. The reports from
UK 15 meter nationals in "sailplane and gliding" last fall were a good
case in point. Pushing the finish point up is a strong discouragement
to a Mc0 + 10 feet glide, and the resulting of- field landing 1 mile
out and 150 feet up when it suddenly becomes clear that's Mc0-10
feet.

And "I've never had a problem" is a poor approach to safety. All the
guys posting to rec.russian.roulette say they haven't had any problems
either

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Mar 18, 4:53*pm, "noel.wade" > wrote:
> On Mar 18, 12:06*pm, Mike the Strike > wrote:
>
> > So, if I can summarize, the new start and finish rules result in the
> > following:
>
> > 1) Your instruments may not show you the distance from the start to
> > the first turn.
>
> Huh? *Is there a _need_ to show this distance? *Can't you see the
> start cylinder on your moving map and make a mental note of the
> distance to the next waypoint that you see flash up on the screen as
> your little glider symbol crosses the cylinder edge? *Or doesn't your
> flight computer make a noise or pop up a note on the screen when you
> exit the cylinder? *I can get all of this with my PDA running XCSoar
> (or SeeYou)...
>
> And since you're now being given credit for the distance you fly (from
> whatever point you exit the cylinder), things should actually be less-
> hard... *You no longer have to worry about being credit for distance
> you didn't fly; or not getting credit for distance you _did_ fly (if
> you exit out the back or something). *So the strategy is simple: *Fly
> as fast and efficiently as you can (safely) from wherever you exit the
> start cylinder until you make the first turnpoint. *What's the
> problem?
>
> > 2) Your instruments may not indicate the location of the finish.
>
> If you want to cut it down to a 1' margin, you are correct. *Your
> instruments may be off by 20 or 50 feet. *How many times have you
> landed at the end of the day and checked your altimeter? *I bet it is
> _not_ showing the same "field elevation" that you set when you took
> off! *It might be off by *gasp* *20 to 50 feet, or more!
>
> I'm a computer professional by day - but flying is not a "digital"
> realm. *You make do and you leave a little bit of a margin, and you
> live with it. *What is the time cost for slowing down during the last
> mile or two of your final glide... 5 to 10 seconds? *OK, stretch that
> out to 5 days of flying. *You've now "lost" perhaps 30 - 45 seconds
> (and you've guaranteed that you won't get a finishing penalty)...
>
> How many of you experienced racers have lost a Regional or National
> because of a cumulative 45 seconds or less over the _entire_ event?
>
> Or to look at this another way: *In the "olden days", how would you
> determine whether you're inside the turnpoint radius (or within 1
> degree of the sector edge) just by looking at a wing-tip photo? *Can't
> be accurate down to 1' or 1-degree there, either!
>
> > 3) Although it's a race, you may have to slow down at the finish.
>
> Yes, that's a bummer. *But have you ever watched a NASCAR or Formula 1
> race? *Sure when they're all coming to the finish bunched up together
> they push to the end - but when someone has a lead or they're coming
> to the checkered flag one-at-a-time, they back off and ensure that
> they make it safely across the finish.
>
> As a newbie to the sport, would I *like* a chance to make a high speed
> low pass as a part of the experience (OK, a few hundred feet off the
> deck, for a modicum of safety)? *Sure! *But that's an ego/adrenaline
> thing - it has nothing to do with determining who the best pilot is or
> who wins the race. *We can't survive a wreck or even a minor mishap
> like the auto-racing folks can (I know, I used to race in NASCAR, the
> SCCA, and a few other series), so sometimes we have to temper our
> enthusiasm and back it off just enough to ensure that no more good
> pilots die needlessly at the beginning or end of a contest flight.
>
> --Noel
> (Also a big fan of the OLC, for the record:http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0/gliding/flightbook.html?sp=2008&...
> )

What you didn't pick up in my description of the finish I fly is that
I fly a little faster further out and then
coast across the line. While the other guy is flying slower to save
height for his fancy finish dive, I'm getting ahead of him and he
never catches up.
Not showey- but faster around the course.
UH

[[email protected]]

On Mar 19, 4:50*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:

> The real problem with low finishes is the occasional low energy
> marginal final glide. There have been plenty of crashes in "fields"
> 1-2 miles from the airport, on the airport fence, and plenty more
> crashes involving low energy over the airport itself. The reports from
> UK 15 meter nationals in "sailplane and gliding" last fall were a good
> case in point. Pushing the finish point up is a strong discouragement
> to a Mc0 + 10 feet glide, *and the resulting of- field landing 1 mile

Unfortunately, minimum height rule hasn't eliminated these accidents.
We still have pilots pressing for the airport over unlandable terrain
with woefully inadequate margin.

-T8

[Tuno]

John,

Okay, I'm a enthusiastic reader of just about everything you write,
but 'And "I've never had a problem" is a poor approach to safety' is a
poor approach to logical persuasion. I've been flying with Andy for
five years now so I know him pretty well, and "I've never had a
problem" is a convincing statement coming from someone as diligent as
he. He is the last guy you will find at our field playing Russian
roulette.

Poor piloting leads to crashes, not undermangled rules.

..02NO

[Andy[_1_]]

On Mar 19, 1:50*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:

> And "I've never had a problem" is a poor approach to safety. All the
> guys posting to rec.russian.roulette say they haven't had any problems
> either

It wan't an approach to safety in itself, rather an observation as to
what happened on my finishes after I had applied my approach to safety
during the final glide.

My approach to safety was to stop and work lift, even if weak, to make
sure I had adequate energy at the finish line even though I would be
slower than those that pressed on with a marginal glide. I don't win
many days ;)

Andy

[[email protected]]

It doesn't make any sense to try to re-open the finish cylinder vs.
finish line debate because the Rules Committee has made its intentions
clear. But it's amusing to me to read the analyses and justifications
here for flying a proper cylinder finish: basically "do it sensibly
and no one will get hurt"; the same advice as we would give for a
finish line. The difference is that a finish line doesn't move around
and is clearly visible outside the cockpit. Yes, as BB points out, in
the past some pilots used poor judgment and "arrived" in a "field" a
mile or two short of the finish with unhappy results. Those are
probably the same guys who pull up or push over sharply just before
the cylinder. The difference is that the only people they hurt landing
short are themselves whereas they can hurt others in a cylinder
finish. Let's not be guilty of what I referred to in engineering
school as "first you draw the curve, then you plot the points." If you
believe the finish cylinder is safer, fine. But don't spend paragraphs
explaining how a smart pilot should do it sensibly to avoid injuring
others and, after the first mid-air on final glide, express anguish
because everything would have been safe if only the pilots had
exercised good judgment. Finish lines and finish cylinders don't hurt
pilots; poor judgment hurts pilots. We've just traded one set of
cautions for another, but the new cautions leave us focused more
inside the cockpit than the old ones.

There's also a phenomenon at work here called "the law of unintended
consequences" with regard to the Rules process but it doesn't serve us
well to open THAT discussion! :)

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

[Jim White[_2_]]

Hi John

I flew the 15s last year. The two crashes just short were not really about
choosing to fly marginal final glides.

The task was flown on a showery day and the early finishers had to fly
through one that spanned the airfield and the last 5k to get home. They
had a choice to wait / go around (perhaps 10 mins or so) or fly through.
Both were very experienced and judged that they had more than enough
energy to finish. The shower changed that big time. Andy Hall is back on
his feet but has stopped gliding.

There were many other pilots finishing at the same time who did get
through. All said the shower had more impact on their glide than
expected.

I finished some 20 mins later without any problems other than having to
plan my final glide around the police / ambulance situation.

Jim


At 20:50 19 March 2009, John Cochrane wrote:
>>
>> I never had a scare on a line finish and did not consider them unsafe.
>>
>> Andy
>
>
>The main reason for the higher finish is not really teh high - energy
>low passt. There have been occasional problems and crashes with those,
>but not really that many.
>
>The real problem with low finishes is the occasional low energy
>marginal final glide. There have been plenty of crashes in "fields"
>1-2 miles from the airport, on the airport fence, and plenty more
>crashes involving low energy over the airport itself. The reports from
>UK 15 meter nationals in "sailplane and gliding" last fall were a good
>case in point. Pushing the finish point up is a strong discouragement
>to a Mc0 + 10 feet glide, and the resulting of- field landing 1 mile
>out and 150 feet up when it suddenly becomes clear that's Mc0-10
>feet.
>
>And "I've never had a problem" is a poor approach to safety. All the
>guys posting to rec.russian.roulette say they haven't had any problems
>either
>
>John Cochrane
>

[[email protected]]

On Mar 20, 3:45*am, Jim White > wrote:
> All said the shower had more impact on their glide than
> expected.

Right. This was a factor in a couple of busted final glides turned
into bad landings in the US, as well.

This is OT, but worth poking into the consciousness: An especially
insidious phenomenon that turned up during debrief was positive
feedback between performance loss due to rain, the speed to fly vario
and the pilot. The vario "sees" the performance loss as sink and
tells the pilot to speed up, aggravating the performance loss, etc.
Good advice seems to be to fly a fixed airspeed, typically 60 knots.

-T8

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 19, 2:59*pm, Andy > wrote:
> On Mar 19, 8:06*am, " >
> wrote:
>
> > Anyone for a Retro race? *3000' Start Gate ("Ready...Mark, good
> > start!"), assigned speed tasks only, have to fly around the turnpoint
> > throught a photosector, and a 50 finish line? *And no whining?-
>
> Your memory of the old days is fading. *We had a turnpoint and a photo
> target. *Whether you flew round (outside) the turnpoint depended on
> the relationship of the turnpoint and photo target to the task legs,
> and on the technique used to position for the photo.
>
> But I share the sentiment about line finishes. *There was a pleasant
> lack of ambiguity about what had to be achieved and for most finishes
> it was all visual reference from 10 miles (or more) to the finish. *In
> addition there was a ground observer with a radio to provide alerts if
> there was a traffic conflict that had not been seen by the involved
> pilots. *The line finish worked well and was safe if all contestants
> flew the same assigned task. *The risk went up if finishers could come
> from different directions.
>
> I never had a scare on a line finish and did not consider them unsafe.
>
> Andy

Not fading, just suggesting (tongue in cheek) a roughly equivalent
turnpoint process, without the actual camera and target ;>). I
distinctly remember the aerobatic maneuvers sometimes needed to get
that stupid wingtip on the photo target, after the fun of finding the
actual target for the first time!

Cheers,

66

[noel.wade]

A couple of things:

1) "Noel, are you keeping up?" Of course I am! :-) Isn't that what
good soaring pilots do - "keep up"?

2) Regarding "Winning" - I have the revised edition and have read it
twice. I'm reading it a third time in the weeks leading up to the
contest, just to stay fresh (since I'm in the middle of work hell and
its early in the season to get a lot of flying in). I also practice
with Condor Soaring, and constantly read Bob Wander's material and
John C's material, and others. I'm a voracious reader and I always
try to over-prepare for new experiences (this is why I was able to get
my PPL SEL in only 43 hours - its not becuase I'm the world's best
pilot; but I was ALWAYS prepared). I give credit for that to my Boy
Scout (Eagle Scout) training... :-)

3) The "300 foot finish window" suggestion is a no-go. A range of
altitude with an exactly equal penalty to offset the time-gain won't
work, because a zero-sum solution doesn't encourage folks to do
anything but push hard to go as fast as possible and just nick through
at minimum altitude... You end up right back at the same situation
we're at today. :-P Worse yet, you may wind up with people trying to
pull up at the last second to regain altitude and avoid that penalty
and "game the system" - if they make a better-than-expected final
glide to that minimum altitude.

The finish is a thorny issue indeed, and I don't think there's a
perfect solution out there anywhere. Its good fodder for endless
debate, however!

Take care,

--Noel
P.S. While the low-pass finish is neat for spectators, are people
really going to sit around for 3 or 4 hours at the airport just to
watch a few high-speed passes? I don't think that's the real reason
for declining entries or crew numbers. I think it has more to do with
societal changes, busy schedules, rising costs of transportation and
lodging, and (most of all) the insular nature of the soaring community
and its aging members. I keep threatening to write an article for
SOARING on this topic, from the perspective of a young (31 year old)
newbie to the sport...

[[email protected][_2_]]

Noel,

> 2) Regarding "Winning" - I have the revised edition and have read it
> twice. *I'm reading it a third time in the weeks leading up to the
> contest, just to stay fresh (since I'm in the middle of work hell and
> its early in the season to get a lot of flying in).

A good start. The Italian book on Racing Sailplanes, although a poor
translation, is also a good read.


> 3) The "300 foot finish window" suggestion is a no-go. *A range of
> altitude with an exactly equal penalty to offset the time-gain won't
> work, because a zero-sum solution doesn't encourage folks to do
> anything but push hard to go as fast as possible and just nick through
> at minimum altitude... You end up right back at the same situation
> we're at today. :-P *Worse yet, you may wind up with people trying to
> pull up at the last second to regain altitude and avoid that penalty
> and "game the system" - if they make a better-than-expected final
> glide to that minimum altitude.

I disagree (and this comes from 10 years of contest finishes, both
line and cylinders). If there is no penalty to finishing within a
reasonable window, there is no incentive to pull up to reach an
arbitrary (and impossible to determine in the cockpit in real time)
altitude. The objective is to make a point-neutral "finish window"
that is big enough that the pilot can fly through it with minimal
heads-down time. You would probably have to have a pretty severe
penalty for finishing low (automatic rolling finish?) to discourage a
diving finish. The current system does not encourage that - it still
rewards a perfect, 501' finish, but has less of a penalty for pooching
it than last year.

The old 50' finish line was a lot easier (and in my opinion, just as
safe, if flown intelligently) But it does require a big airfield if a
lot of gliders are finishing at the same time. I'm not holding my
breath to see it again, though, since it drives the safety nazis
absolutely bonkers!

[[email protected]]

On Mar 20, 1:21*pm, " >
wrote:

> I disagree (and this comes from 10 years of contest finishes, both
> line and cylinders). *If there is no penalty to finishing within a
> reasonable window, there is no incentive to pull up to reach an
> arbitrary (and impossible to determine in the cockpit in real time)
> altitude. *The objective is to make a point-neutral "finish window"
> that is big enough that the pilot can fly through it with minimal
> heads-down time. *You would probably have to have a pretty severe
> penalty for finishing low (automatic rolling finish?) to discourage a
> diving finish. *The current system does not encourage that - it still
> rewards a perfect, 501' finish, but has less of a penalty for pooching
> it than last year.
>
> The old 50' finish line was a lot easier (and in my opinion, just as
> safe, if flown intelligently) *But it does require a big airfield if a
> lot of gliders are finishing at the same time. *I'm not holding my
> breath to see it again, though, since it drives the safety nazis
> absolutely bonkers!

Kirk - I may misunderstand your point, but it there were a 300-foot
window within which there is no penalty wouldn't you fly a faster
glide to shoot for the bottom of it? If you mean a window where the
penalty approximates the time it takes to climb the extra distance,
it's my understanding that is what the current rule tries to do,
though obviously you would need to set the climb rate low to keep a
pilot in a marginal thermal from taking the penalty over the slow
climb to avoid the penalty. That means the current rule has a penalty
that seems steep for someone who nicks the cylinder on an strong day.

I loved the old finish line, but as a practical matter we aren't going
to see it anymore. ASTs aren't called often enough to give pilots
experience with it so no CD would ever call it even if we kept it in
the rules as an option. I like the graduated penalty on the cylinder a
lot more that the old rule and I think this years mod does decrease
the likelihood of zoomies into the cylinder - I did a few over the
years if I felt the coast was clear - just to be sure I was high
enough to get a finish. Now you need to pull up just short of the edge
of the cylinder if you want to add a few extra feet for insurance. I
agree with the point that if you had a more precise and easy way to
see the finish you could hit it more precisely, but in all honesty all
the speed in the final glide is in how well you optimize the speed for
the last 20-40 miles. I know I ALWAYS climb too high for final glides,
but I hate being low if the sky dumps on me. Under the old finish line
you had no altitude at the finish gate so you carried altitude with
you until you had it made. This is why all the finishes were 120-knots
crowd-pleasers, but in general I'd argue that they weren't more
efficient form a task speed perspective.

>
> Again, my personal experience is that yes, spouses/girlfriends/dogs/
> kids will hang around if they are involved and there is some visual
> feedback on how their pilot is doing. *Remember, you got the launch,
> then gliders start going through the gate for a 2.5 or 3 hour task -
> the starts may last over an hour, one a time, then in a couple of
> hours or less the finishes begin, and go on for a while. *After the
> rush to get everything done prior to the launch and working the start
> gate, the crews were happy for a break to get lunch, relax, and get
> ready for the finish show - when there were simultaneous finishes, it
> even looked like a real race!

Sorta, kinda...

I worked my share of gates and only the guys with the binoculars got
much of a look at the starts. Under the TAT and MAT rules you get more
bunching of the finishes I think - so it make more sense for people to
scram until finish time - which is predictable within a few tens of
minutes the way things work today - just that there's nothing to see.
At one contest last year it was permitted to make a pass after
finishing as long as you were away from the buildings and people and
landing gliders - it was fun, if a bit pointless from a racing
perspective.

9B

[[email protected][_2_]]

Al, what I'm struggling to describe is a situation where there is no
advantage to diving at the finish; yes it is very similar to today's
rule, but would use the log record of the last few climbs to
automatically figure the "penalty" if low, which would really just
equal the time spent climbing the extra feet to finish above the
window. So essentially, there is no difference in climbing the extra
300 feet to make a good 500' finish, since if you take a chance and
end up 200 feet low, you get hit for the time it would have taken you
to continue the climb those 200'.

If it worked, the emphasis on final glides would to to climb to the
optimum Mc altitude for the climb rate, then fly that speed all the
way to the finish - and you would want to take the time to get up to
the 500' finish, to make sure you had a pad on the way in. But if you
hit a bad stretch on the glide, you could still just slow down and
ghost in, without a "penalty" - or call a rolling finish and land
straight in.

But to make it work, you then have to be a bit draconian if you bust
the bottom of the finish, I guess.

But this is all pre-season bartalk anyway - I can't wait to try out
the new start/finish at Cordele in a couple of months!

Like you I've asked for a "low approach" at the end of a contest
flight, on the pretext of waking up the Crew!

Cheers,

Kirk

[[email protected]]

On Mar 20, 3:24*pm, " >
wrote:
> Al, what I'm struggling to describe is a situation where there is no
> advantage to diving at the finish; yes it is very similar to today's
> rule, but would use the log record of the last few climbs to
> automatically figure the "penalty" if low, which would really just
> equal the time spent climbing the extra feet to finish above the
> window. So essentially, there is no difference in climbing the extra
> 300 feet to make a good 500' finish, since if you take a chance and
> end up 200 feet low, you get hit for the time it would have taken you
> to continue the climb those 200'.
>
> If it worked, the emphasis on final glides would to to climb to the
> optimum Mc altitude for the climb rate, then fly that speed all the
> way to the finish - and you would want to take the time to get up to
> the 500' finish, to make sure you had a pad on the way in. *But if you
> hit a bad stretch on the glide, you could still just slow down and
> ghost in, without a "penalty" - or call a rolling finish and land
> straight in.
>
> But to make it work, you then have to be a bit draconian if you bust
> the bottom of the finish, I guess.
>
> But this is all pre-season bartalk anyway - I can't wait to try out
> the new start/finish at Cordele in a couple of months!
>
> Like you I've asked for a "low approach" at the end of a contest
> flight, on the pretext of waking up the Crew!
>
> Cheers,
>
> Kirk

Got it - that makes sense except for the situation where your last
thermal was a good one but you are still low on the glide so you face
a choice of skipping any lift that you aren't POSITIVE is at least as
good. That's because one turn an a half knot thermal and - BAM -
you're into a much steeper penalty.

9B

[[email protected][_2_]]

On Mar 20, 7:29*pm, wrote:
> On Mar 20, 3:24*pm, " >
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Al, what I'm struggling to describe is a situation where there is no
> > advantage to diving at the finish; yes it is very similar to today's
> > rule, but would use the log record of the last few climbs to
> > automatically figure the "penalty" if low, which would really just
> > equal the time spent climbing the extra feet to finish above the
> > window. So essentially, there is no difference in climbing the extra
> > 300 feet to make a good 500' finish, since if you take a chance and
> > end up 200 feet low, you get hit for the time it would have taken you
> > to continue the climb those 200'.
>
> > If it worked, the emphasis on final glides would to to climb to the
> > optimum Mc altitude for the climb rate, then fly that speed all the
> > way to the finish - and you would want to take the time to get up to
> > the 500' finish, to make sure you had a pad on the way in. *But if you
> > hit a bad stretch on the glide, you could still just slow down and
> > ghost in, without a "penalty" - or call a rolling finish and land
> > straight in.
>
> > But to make it work, you then have to be a bit draconian if you bust
> > the bottom of the finish, I guess.
>
> > But this is all pre-season bartalk anyway - I can't wait to try out
> > the new start/finish at Cordele in a couple of months!
>
> > Like you I've asked for a "low approach" at the end of a contest
> > flight, on the pretext of waking up the Crew!
>
> > Cheers,
>
> > Kirk
>
> Got it - that makes sense except for the situation where your last
> thermal was a good one but you are still low on the glide so you face
> a choice of skipping any lift that you aren't POSITIVE is at least as
> good. That's because one turn an a half knot thermal and - BAM -
> you're into a much steeper penalty.
>
> 9B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, there are so many variables and unintended consequences - and no
way to make everybody happy! I'm glad to leave it all to the contest
committee and just rag on them on RAS (tongue in cheek, of course!).

Kirk
66