On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:38:28 -0700, noel.wade wrote:

On Aug 8, 11:47Â*am, Buba Smith wrote:

there was nothing safe about the tasks assigned over unsafe terrain at
your " Safest mountain site " or cramming nearly 60 gliders and 5
towplanes on the same mile and a half stretch of ridge at the same
altitude .

"Buba" -

You are ignoring the facts (again). Launches were staggered and contest
classes were given different start-cylinder radii (up to 10 miles!!) so
that they could spread out and avoid each other. 60 gliders were NOT
forced into the same "half-mile" stretch of ridge at all. During
launches there were multiple gaggles up and down the ridge from
Smithfield Canyon to Logan Canyon, on the ridge and out in front of it.
And as people got above the ridge they spread out even more. Every time
I hit 9000' I dove for the ridge and ran from just south of Sugar Creek
to Naomi while waiting for the gate to open, and that got me well away
from the gaggles. Anyone could have done this same thing if they wanted
to (and several did).

As far as "unsafe" terrain... You claim to be a mountain-flyer. ANYONE
who has flown in the mountains has flown over lots of unlandable
terrain. Its called "the mountains" (themselves)! UNSAFE terrain is a
totally different animal. What makes terrain unsafe is not just the
slope, or the rocks, or the vegetation. The pilot's attitude, planning,
and judgement skills are critical components. The CD and task-setters
do NOT force the pilot to fly over specific terrain. It is up to the
pilots to choose their route. _Legally_, pilots are responsible for the
safety of their own flight (FAR 91.3). Picking a route on a contest task
is about more than just finding the "green air". Terrain & safety
should factor into the decision-making process. During the Regionals, I
personally was never more than 10 miles from a landable field, and when
I was that far away from one I was usually quite high - or I was working
reliable lift (or both). And lest anyone think that my choices somehow
compromised my competitiveness: I finished 4th overall out of 16
entrants in my class, and were it not for a low finish one day I would
have taken 2nd. I don't want to point at myself too much as an example
of good judgement (I make my fair share of bad decisions and goofs) -
but I want to illustrate that you can be fast *and* still be reasonably
safe.

Look, I'm a 300-hour glider pilot with less than 5 full seasons under my
belt. Logan 2011 was my 5th SSA contest ever. If the place was that
bad/scary/dangerous, how come I had no serious problems and was able to
make it around the (Regionals) task every day except for the first (when
massive thunderstorms downed almost the entire fleet)? I wasn't just
lucky: I got low in places, and on the first day I landed out... Yet I
didn't break my glider and I was never in danger of putting it down in a
nasty area because I planned ahead while I was still high enough to take
action. That's just part of mountain- flying!

I HATE the fact that a group of 4 or 5 guys have taken it upon
themselves to tar and feather the Logan site, the contest management,
and (specifically) Tim. These are good people, good pilots, and they
had good intentions. There was no malicious action or devious plotting.
They freely shared their local information and repeatedly warned pilots
about trouble areas or ways to cross difficult terrain. What more could
they have done? They can't fly the damn glider for someone else, or
force them to make good decisions! Case in point: One of the broken
gliders flew 6+ miles into rising terrain while losing altitude. The
glider came to rest on a rocky slope near 6400' elevation. If you look
at Google Maps (via the OLC trace - its online) you can see a highway
running through a low slot (5500') that the pilot could have used to
turn back North and escape to lower terrain (5000'). In fact, for those
last 6 miles the contestant was flying parallel the "escape route", just
1 mile to the east of it. I am not saying any of this to be harsh on
the pilot; I'm making the point that this broken glider has NOTHING to
do with the task that was called or the contest staff, or even the site!
When someone drives a boat into a dock do we blame the dock? When a
car runs off the road and hits a house, to we blame the house or the
bend in the road?

Lest you all think I'm being a Pollyanna, I will say that there are some
things about the contest I that I think could have been improved:
The tasks were based upon weather calls that were not always correct. In
defense of the contest staff we're also talking about a week in which
MOST of the USA was experiencing bizarre weather - including 119 degrees
in Minnesota! When I was in Logan in 2010, weather was much stronger
and the tasks that were called would have been no problem if the weather
was just a touch better most days. Still, some different weather
forecast assumptions and a later grid-time would have been appreciated,
once we all caught on to the weather patterns that were prevalent during
the first week. I understand the reluctance to move the grid-time
later; conventional wisdom says its worse to miss an early day or a
chance for a big task - and before the contest people were having
success launching early... But at the same time there was a cumulative
toll being taken on pilots & crews (and staff) sitting out in the sun
day after day. I also agree that some (not all) of the backup tasks
were not well-thought-out. Sometimes reducing the minimum time and
using large turn radii can work; but not always. And I think that in
the future ANY contest staff should think hard about trying to put on a
Regionals & a Nats at the same time. I flew the Regionals and would
have hated not being able to compete; but I also think that there were
many people who showed up for the Regionals simply because a Nationals
was being held and they wanted to fly at the same site. Some of them
were not prepared for hard racing or for mountain-flying, and the wide
spread in performance and skill between the top and bottom of the 60
entrants made life harder for the Staff and some of the contestants. I
think the staff did the best job that they could, but I also think that
a single contest would have allowed more focus and reduced some of the
complaints and problems (Note that I don't think it would have prevented
any of the broken aircraft or altered the weather problems). And again
- the passing of Charlie "Lite" did not help matters. Whether or not
you personally like the contest staff members, you have to give them
credit for working hard to still put on a contest just a handful weeks
after his passing.

And for the last time: This was not a Safari, Encampment, Fun-Fly, or
XC-camp. It was a _contest_. Primarily, it was a NATIONAL
CHAMPIONSHIP. Its *supposed* to be tough and challenging and require
good judgement and tough decisions and calculated risks. It was not
billed as a contest for beginners. It was not intended to be a place
where people come to fly their first contest. Some people have
complained about Logan in the context of getting "Joe Glider Pilot" to
come fly contests... But "Joe" was not the target audience! If you
want to get "Joe" out, do what we do in WA: Hold a mock-contest over a
3-day weekend, with mentors and seminars and short simple tasks in a
place with strong lift and non-threatening terrain. Don't dumb-down
National Championships or restrict which sites are considered for major
events, based on the misguided assumption that somehow you'll increase
participation by doing so.

And to anyone who's actually read this Novella all the way through:
Thanks! :-)

--Noel

Noel has been using his personal blog space on the SSA web site to post
about his experiences and thoughts. I invite any SSA member to follow
suit. Others can follow member blogs using the RSS feeds. Read the
disclaimer.

Hopefully, bloggers will use this to describe their experiences, projects,
opinions, and ideas.

You can subscribe to various feeds; general news, particular committees,
and members.

See http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=91...how=blog&id=11
for details.

Inspire me,

Frank Whiteley