On Jul 27, 12:14 pm, John Sinclair
wrote:
Oh, my, my, Kirk, did we get caught with our hand in
the cookie jar?

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

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

At 13:48 27 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:



On Jul 27, 7:41 am, toad wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno wrote:

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

It's a matter of energy, not altitude.

Ask Garret Willat!

2NO

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

Todd
3S

Todd,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers,

Kirk
66- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

JJ,

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

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

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

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

Kirk