Saturday practice at Hobbs NM

Hi Guys - I arrived in Hobbs Friday afternoon after driving 2,222 miles.
Since I've only flown the Antares once since the Seniors in March
(564km from Sterling MA up to Belvidere VT and return) I wanted to
get in a decent flight and knock some rust off.
Perhaps you will find this entertaining...

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...Id=-1474873387

Launched about 12:30, using the cross runway as the crosswind
on the ramp was 20 knots. Flying with the 18m (short) tips and full
water for a wing-loading of ~11.9 lbs/ft2, which is TOO LOW a
wing-loading for this glider in these conditions. Very rough low
so I shut down a bit higher than usual at around 1300 AGL in a
decent thermal.

First thermal showed as high as 13 knots on the averager, under
building cu way, way above me. I headed north when the thermal
dropped as low as 7 knots, following the clouds into the NW part
of our task area, turning Caprock at the edge of the cus (blue
and a bit smoky to the north). Followed the cus south, turned
Abandoned, then headed into wind under a street out to Maljamar.
Tried to be disciplined and circle in only 10 knots or better, though
I did slow up from 120 knot cruise when I could climb on course
at 5 knots or better. Headed to Lovington then SE to Mabee,
where I landed a decade back after seeing a tornado. Turned back
west and ran to Eunice and Railroad, then back east to Andrews.

Clouds appeared to be based around 18000-18500, though I
stopped at 17500 as required by racing rules (this did require
dumping the flaps and jamming the stick forward when the
altimeter was winding up like a clock). Last couple climbs
were a bit weaker, seemed like the day was winding down, so
I topped out before Andrews, a final-glided around the turn
from around 16000 for a fast run back to windy Hobbs.

Results from SN10: 452.6 miles at 100.3 mph.
All turnpoints achieved per MAT task rules (cylinder).
Antares Rules !

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

PS: Sunday looks too windy to fly, and I've knocked some
rust off. First race day Tuesday (Sunday and Monday are
official practice days).

Originally Posted by Dave Nadler

Hi Guys - I arrived in Hobbs Friday afternoon after driving 2,222 miles.
Since I've only flown the Antares once since the Seniors in March
(564km from Sterling MA up to Belvidere VT and return) I wanted to
get in a decent flight and knock some rust off.
Perhaps you will find this entertaining...

http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0...Id=-1474873387

Launched about 12:30, using the cross runway as the crosswind
on the ramp was 20 knots. Flying with the 18m (short) tips and full
water for a wing-loading of ~11.9 lbs/ft2, which is TOO LOW a
wing-loading for this glider in these conditions. Very rough low
so I shut down a bit higher than usual at around 1300 AGL in a
decent thermal.

First thermal showed as high as 13 knots on the averager, under
building cu way, way above me. I headed north when the thermal
dropped as low as 7 knots, following the clouds into the NW part
of our task area, turning Caprock at the edge of the cus (blue
and a bit smoky to the north). Followed the cus south, turned
Abandoned, then headed into wind under a street out to Maljamar.
Tried to be disciplined and circle in only 10 knots or better, though
I did slow up from 120 knot cruise when I could climb on course
at 5 knots or better. Headed to Lovington then SE to Mabee,
where I landed a decade back after seeing a tornado. Turned back
west and ran to Eunice and Railroad, then back east to Andrews.

Clouds appeared to be based around 18000-18500, though I
stopped at 17500 as required by racing rules (this did require
dumping the flaps and jamming the stick forward when the
altimeter was winding up like a clock). Last couple climbs
were a bit weaker, seemed like the day was winding down, so
I topped out before Andrews, a final-glided around the turn
from around 16000 for a fast run back to windy Hobbs.

Results from SN10: 452.6 miles at 100.3 mph.
All turnpoints achieved per MAT task rules (cylinder).
Antares Rules !

See ya, Dave "YO electric"

PS: Sunday looks too windy to fly, and I've knocked some
rust off. First race day Tuesday (Sunday and Monday are
official practice days).

WOW.

Walt

As someone who has flown in a large number of contests with and without
flarm I have a few comments.

Flarm is a fantastic tool and can avoid many problems, especially during
cruise and entering thermals. It can also be used as a guide to find lift,
sometimes it has alerted me to a glider in lift which I had not yet seen.
However it WILL NOT STOP A PILOT HITTING ANOTHER AIRCRAFT!!!!! Only
looking out and flying in a safe manner will do that! In a close gaggle,
especially thermalling it is of limited use due to low closing rates and
overload of warnings. I have been almost hit by a pilot who simply did not
see me despite any warnings, this happened twice in the same thermal -
"words" after landing!
I think anyone who doesn't use flarm in a contest is an idiot [including
some very high ranked pilots from last WGC]
however do not close your eyes to the world outside thinking flarm will
save you.

Tom Claffey [16 Australian Nats, 2 WGC]



At 23:41 19 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:

'Chris Nicholas[_2_ Wrote:
;775333']At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
-
So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of
an
impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable
information.
My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.

Walt-


It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have
ignored
the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid collision
but
it was misjudged.

If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data,
Flarm
can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show
what
warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm, showing
what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been
operating
(the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of that
collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning.
[For
different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]

If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are,
Flarm
could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If
loggers
are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever
seconds,
I
don’t know how useful that would be.

Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something
which
might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of
this
sad event.

Chris N.

Good point. Failure to acknowledge and heed the warnings of such a
device is a major mistake. I would think that pilots at this level
would be more receptive and aware of the potential for ignoring such
information. On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths.

Walt




--
Walt Connelly

"On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths. "

There is a world of difference among the choices of hanging around over
the airport, going out X/C, and racing in contests.

You can choose your level of safety. Paul Bikle once said that to be
successful in national contests you must realize that the glider is
expendable.



At 23:41 19 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:

'Chris Nicholas[_2_ Wrote:
;775333']At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
-
So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of
an
impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable
information.
My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.

Walt-


It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have
ignored
the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid collision
but
it was misjudged.

If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data,
Flarm
can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show
what
warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm, showing
what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been
operating
(the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of that
collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning.
[For
different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]

If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are,
Flarm
could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If
loggers
are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever
seconds,
I
don’t know how useful that would be.

Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something
which
might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of
this
sad event.

Chris N.

Good point. Failure to acknowledge and heed the warnings of such a
device is a major mistake. I would think that pilots at this level
would be more receptive and aware of the potential for ignoring such
information. On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths.

Walt




--
Walt Connelly

Havew the pilots' names been released?

At 21:45 20 June 2011, Nyal Williams wrote:

"On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths. "

There is a world of difference among the choices of hanging around over
the airport, going out X/C, and racing in contests.

You can choose your level of safety. Paul Bikle once said that to be
successful in national contests you must realize that the glider is
expendable.



At 23:41 19 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:

'Chris Nicholas[_2_ Wrote:
;775333']At 15:34 17 June 2011, Walt Connelly wrote:
-
So FLARM was compulsory, I wonder why if failed to warn the pilots of
an
impending mid-air? This would be interesting and valuable
information.
My condolences to the family of the deceased pilot.

Walt-


It did not necessarily fail to warn them – one or both may have
ignored
the warnings, perhaps believing that a manoeuvre would avoid
collision
but
it was misjudged.

If the two units are not destroyed beyond recovery of stored data,
Flarm
can, I believe, read the files and replay both sets of data to show
what
warnings, if any, were given. I have a video clip from Flarm,
showing
what 2 units would have displayed in a collision had they been
operating
(the data came from 1 second logger recordings, and Flarm units I
understand store the same data and time interval). In the case of
that
collision, the units both would have given about 6 seconds warning.
[For
different reasons, one being faulty wiring by a glider manufacturer,
neither Flarm was actually working in that particular incident.]

If the Flarm units themselves are not readable, but the loggers are,
Flarm
could do the same as they did for the collision I referred to. If
loggers
are recording at wider intervals, however, 4 or 11 or whatever
seconds,
I
don’t know how useful that would be.

Let’s hope the accident investigators are able to produce something
which
might be a learning experience for the rest of us, as one outcome of
this
sad event.

Chris N.

Good point. Failure to acknowledge and heed the warnings of such a
device is a major mistake. I would think that pilots at this level
would be more receptive and aware of the potential for ignoring such
information. On a percentage basis this sport is not as safe as I
once thought it was. In my short time engaged in soaring, about a year
and a half I have read of too many mid-airs and deaths.

Walt




--
Walt Connelly

Last summer I was a co-pilot at a contest to find out what it was like
and how they did those fast flights.

What I found out;

Contest are DANGEROUS, we had 2 collisions, one Mid-Air and one on
ground, no injuries, ground one killed the Pride & Ego of the loser.
Mid-air made it home with broken wing (this looks like why our hull
insurance is so high).

Many pilots take big chances way too close to the ground, yes even a
half span at times!! Sure your very big L/D will get you to the
airport, but just touch a rock and it's over, history, body bags, etc.

Contests are an accident looking to happen;
Everyone gaggles up and Dashes for the start gate. Amazingly no
problems.
Everyone then tries to finish and land at the same time, some very,
very low! We had 3 gliders land on the same runway at the same time,
again, Amazingly no problems, just barely!

In my opinion, Glider racing is much more dangerous than car racing
and motorcycle racing that I have done in my youth.

What I did learn was the incredible concentration and dedication to
thermaling and finding thermals that the pilots do regularly. I love
XC so this is what I must learn to do better.
I also learned that for so large a group flying together they have
great Comaraderie and discipline

I have flown with Flarm in Europe and think it's great, but in the
contest enviroment I believe many will ignore it or not react to its
warning properly, as in Hope the other pilot avoids you instead of you
avoiding him.

Just my 2c worth,

Jay

On 6/21/2011 2:00 PM, Free Flight 107 wrote:
Last summer I was a co-pilot at a contest to find out what it was like
and how they did those fast flights.

What I found out;

Contest are DANGEROUS, we had 2 collisions, one Mid-Air and one on
ground, no injuries, ground one killed the Pride& Ego of the loser.
Mid-air made it home with broken wing (this looks like why our hull
insurance is so high).

Many pilots take big chances way too close to the ground, yes even a
half span at times!! Sure your very big L/D will get you to the
airport, but just touch a rock and it's over, history, body bags, etc.

Contests are an accident looking to happen;
Everyone gaggles up and Dashes for the start gate. Amazingly no
problems.
Everyone then tries to finish and land at the same time, some very,
very low! We had 3 gliders land on the same runway at the same time,
again, Amazingly no problems, just barely!

In my opinion, Glider racing is much more dangerous than car racing
and motorcycle racing that I have done in my youth.

What I did learn was the incredible concentration and dedication to
thermaling and finding thermals that the pilots do regularly. I love
XC so this is what I must learn to do better.
I also learned that for so large a group flying together they have
great Comaraderie and discipline

I have flown with Flarm in Europe and think it's great, but in the
contest enviroment I believe many will ignore it or not react to its
warning properly, as in Hope the other pilot avoids you instead of you
avoiding him.

Just my 2c worth,

Jay

The reality is that FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology is
useless in collision avoidance at close quarters. At the very best, the
position accuracy is only 50 ft and is only updated once a second.
Flying at 50 knots, you are traveling ~70 ft / second, so a lot can
happen between updates.

These systems are great in warning you about aircraft in your area that
you might otherwise not be aware of, and to give you an overview of how
many aircraft are in a particular gaggle and their relative altitudes,
but you absolutely can't rely on them for collision avoidance in a thermal.

Makes you wonder how many of these accidents are a result of
overconfidence instilled in pilots who don't understand the limits of
the technology?

--
Mike Schumann

On Jun 21, 3:00*pm, Free Flight 107 wrote:
Last summer I was a co-pilot at a contest to find out what it was like
and how they did those fast flights.

What I found out;

Contest are DANGEROUS, we had 2 collisions, one Mid-Air and one on
ground, no injuries, ground one killed the Pride & Ego of the loser.
Mid-air made it home with broken wing (this looks like why our hull
insurance is so high).

Many pilots take big chances way too close to the ground, yes even a
half span at times!! Sure your very big L/D will get you to the
airport, but just touch a rock and it's over, history, body bags, etc.

Contests are an accident looking to happen;
Everyone gaggles up and Dashes for the start gate. Amazingly no
problems.
Everyone then tries to finish and land at the same time, some very,
very low! We had 3 gliders land on the same runway at the same time,
again, Amazingly no problems, just barely!

In my opinion, Glider racing is much more dangerous than car racing
and motorcycle racing that I have done in my youth.

What I did learn was the incredible concentration and dedication to
thermaling and finding thermals that the pilots do regularly. I love
XC so this is what I must learn to do better.
I also learned that for so large a group flying together they have
great Comaraderie and discipline

I have flown with Flarm in Europe and think it's great, but in the
contest enviroment I believe many will ignore it or not react to its
warning properly, as in Hope the other pilot avoids you instead of you
avoiding him.

Just my 2c worth,

Jay

Whatever attitudes you perceived in the flying you did certainly do
not agree with my experience in 35 years of competition.
I see almost uniformly good attitudes toward safety although we have
some that push too far and pay the price with damaged gliders.
I don't believe pilots will ignore Flarm warnings and hope for the
best.
Some of the changes made in the US have been aimed at reducing the
reward for risk taking such as low energy final glides and start
processes that tend to disperse the start gaggle.
It would be interesting to know where you observed the behavior you
describe.
UH

On 6/21/2011 1:56 PM, Mike Schumann wrote:


The reality is that FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology is
useless in collision avoidance at close quarters. At the very best, the
position accuracy is only 50 ft and is only updated once a second.
Flying at 50 knots, you are traveling ~70 ft / second, so a lot can
happen between updates.

These systems are great in warning you about aircraft in your area that
you might otherwise not be aware of, and to give you an overview of how
many aircraft are in a particular gaggle and their relative altitudes,
but you absolutely can't rely on them for collision avoidance in a thermal.

Is this conclusion based, at least in part, on your personal use of
FLARM in several contests?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

I cannot agree that “FLARM, ADS-B, or any other GPS based technology
is useless in collision avoidance at close quarters”. It/they are not
panaceas that will always avert collisions, but it/they are much
better than not having them.

I nearly had a head-on collision that I believe Flarm helped avert.
Two closer gliders at say 1 and 2 o’clock momentarily distracted me
from a third, just behind, in my 12 o’clock. His and my Flarms went
off, and he was already turning to avoid me by the time I picked him
up.

If somebody approaches you from behind, you CANNOT see them. If Flarm
alerts, you as well as the other now have the chance to do something
about it – e.g. dive to accelerate away when you get say 6 seconds
warning of a probably collision from behind. If the pilot behind was
misjudging the proximity, or has his head down, that becomes your only
chance. The pilot in front of the two, in a collision I referenced
above, certainly wished that both their Flarms had been working. The
Flarm company analysis of their logger traces showed exactly how much
notice they would have had.

Chris N.