Hi John

I'm not sure where a start height limit and 2 minutes under before start
originated - we've been doing it in UK for years now.

And I remain unconvinced that a CD that sets a task at 9 a.m and then
doesn't decide to change it until everyone is launched has his eye on the
ball.

In UK it's conventional to brief 2 (at least) tasks in view of the
variation in possible weather, and then notify the task to be flown 10
minutes before first launch if it isn't the primary task.

As a CD I have the option of briefing a completely changed task 20 mins
before first launch.

What do you do if a pilots' radio goes unserviceable transmit and he can't
be raised to confirm a change - cancel the day?

I don't claim our way is perfect, but we do listen to alternative views and
are prepared to adopt good ideas.

Hey, come on over and fly one of our comps, see how the other half live.

Peter

t 19:57 20 September 2012, Mike C wrote:
On Sep 20, 10:07=A0am, John Cochrane wrote:
And changing tasks in the air is insanity.

Peter:

=A0All over Europe, I hear this opinion. "unsafe!"" "heavens, they'll
run in to each other programming pdas" And so, off in to the
thunderstorm we go, just because that's the task someone picked at 9
am

You and the rest of the gliding world discussing rules would do a lot
better if we were all to listen to experience rather than just
theorizing.

The US has been changing task in the air for over 25 years -- since
long before flight computers. It's done carefully and methodically --
we're not stupid you know. Usually there is a task B, so all that is
done is "now that we see where the storm is on the radar loop, we're
changing to task B" Very rarely a whole task will be entered. We give
at least 10 minutes and more often 15 for task entry time, pushing
back the start. We brief pilots over and over again how to do this.
Wait a few minutes -- don't all do it at once. Leave the start gaggle.
Look around. Then reprogram. We do a roll call on the radio, does
everyone have the task and has had a chance to reprogram. Only then do
we go.

Now, off theory and on to experience. Not once in 25 years has there
been an accident, incident, or even a near miss caused by
reprogramming computers in response to a task change. NOT ONCE. So
much for theory. We've had crashes in every other imaginable way, and
a few creative ones besides.

This is helped by the US start procedure, which the rest of the world
also hooted down at Uvalde based on theory, ignoring 25 years of
experience. We limit altitude at the start, and require you stay 2
minutes under the start height. "Heavens, they'll just look at the
altimeter and run in to each other" screams theory. No, 25 years of
experience says NOT ONE incident of the sort. What we save are the
gaggling in the starts, big start gaggles going off into the clouds
together, VNE dives through limited-altitude starts that don't have
time limits, =A0and sticking with the gaggle for half an hour to gain
the last 50 feet that everyone else seems to love. (With a limited
altitude start, you can go away, reprogram, and know you'll easily get
back to start altitude in a short time; you don't have to stick with
the gaggle like glue.)

No not perfect. But we haven't stuck with this for 25 years because
we're insane.

Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her.

John Cochrane


"Experience is actually a pretty good teacher, if we will only listen
to her."

IF there is no bias involved. When we dig our heals in, and apply
blinders, not so good.