Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

PWhat I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location.


What I don't get is why circling at 500 feet to make it over the finish line is a qualitatively different thing than circling at 500 feet to avoid a landout. If you want a hard deck, ask for a hard deck.

A hard deck is available by waiver if any CD wants to try it, BTW. Just ask. A hard deck donut is available by waiver if you want to try that too. For higher finishes, just ask the CD.

John Cochrane

In response to 9B:
The original post that started this discussion provided some data indicating that the current rule is not working as well as hoped in certain situations, and made some suggestions that might improve it.

As to the hard deck idea, I do not understand how that will affect a pilot who is faced with a deteriorating final glide that places him near the land-out penalty altitude just outside the finish circle. He will have been above any proposed hard deck all the way. A pilot who is watching the final glide knows early on that he might not make the MFH and is looking for lift all the way. The crunch comes in the last mile or so when he has not found it and is now looking to avoid a big penalty, as described (with concrete examples) in the original post.

The original post suggested increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’, thereby reducing the per foot penalty and providing more incentive to continue to a safe landing. In light of the excellent explanation from 9B about the RC’s deliberations leading to the current rule, I would appreciate his opinion as to how increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’ (with a commensurate increase in the MFH) would effect the pilot’s decision in the case of a degrading final glide where the pilot can still make the field safety but is facing a land-out finish penalty. It would seem to me that decreasing the penalty for a low (but safely above the bottom of the PZ) entry would increase the motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than stopping to thermal at an unsafe altitude. Imagine a pilot facing a small penalty for a busted glide vs the same pilot facing a huge penalty; which has the stronger motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than attempting a 'hail Mary' play?

I still suggest that we increase the width of the penalty zone as above for the 2014 season. This would be a trivial change to implement, and has the virtue that its effects can be easily measured and compared to prior-year data.

Well we've certainly come a long way from the "plea for a 500' finish".

Guys: it's a MINIMUM finish height. If you feel you need 1200 agl to be safe (there are days like that at some sites), you plan accordingly.

The story from 18s last year is bizarre. Anyone so focused on hitting MFT at minimum speed that they subsequently discover their airport arrival, pattern, sequencing and landing is compromised is just being irresponsible. If your airport arrival planning suggests higher than MFH, you just better damned well do it. Absent a really silly high MFH, these are concurrent, not serial tasks.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Of course, the other alternative is simply to remove this rule altogether and just allow the pilots to make their own choices. It is a quite a pickle...



Personally, I am open to both options. What I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location.



Sean


I have to agree. and anyone who circles BELOW 500 when they're that close to the field is a schmuck.

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:48:44 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
2000 ft is a little high ;-), but (based on the discussion within this thread) we definitely need to consider moving MFH and any hard deck up to just above a mutually agreed "safe circling altitude." This minimum acceptable safe circling altitude is the key. I think we all agree that any finish height rule is absolutely going to cause a certain subset of pilots to instinctively try and save their points just outside the distance barrier and just below the penalty altitude. 1200 feet AGL is probably the right MFH (with graduated penalties down to 1000 AGL) as a stall spin is PROBABLY recoverable from 800 - 900 feet in most gliders. This is where the gliders "caught" by this rule will be "doing their dance!" At 18 meter nationals last summer (due to the nature of the finishes and the lack of acceptable landing options surrounding the airfield) the MFH was moved up mid contest. There was luke warm debate although the CD managed the discussion very eloquently. Ultimately, a vote was taken and the result was in favor of raising the MFH. I think it was moved from 700 to 800 AGL. It might have been higher. I do not remember. 1200 ft, is only 400 above 18m Nationals last summer. Clearly, it offers a greater cushion should the unthinkable happen and someone spins... Of course, the other alternative is simply to remove this rule altogether and just allow the pilots to make their own choices. It is a quite a pickle... Personally, I am open to both options. What I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location. Sean F2 On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:18:32 AM UTC-5, Andrew Brayer wrote: Could we please just raise the finish height to 2000 feet and get it over with? i'll just do contest style finishes when i'm not at contests. having made my sarcastic remark, I do appreciate the efforts to make this sport safer. the problem is you cannot prevent accidents universally, this is aviation and racing combined. Instead we need to encourage pilots to make safe decisions rather than trying to protect everyone by implementing rules. my two cents.

I've flown a few contests, something more than 30, since the finish cylinder, in various forms, has been in place. I have never seen anyone trying to circle up to finish height. Obviously there may be a few cases where this happens. My view is that it makes little sense to try to solve issues that occur quite rarely.
Other considerations should include the likely actions after finishing. When one finishes at about 700 feet, the height is about right to enter the pattern and we can expect most pilots to do so pretty mich immediately. We then know where to expect the other traffic to be and recovery is usually orderly.
Raise the height by several hundred feet and now everyone will need to work out a path to get down to pattern height. This introduces another factor we all have to cope with as different pilots do their own way of letting down and entering the pattern.
With the commonly used 700 foot finish, I almost always position myself when finishing so I can directly enter the pattern and land. I note that most others do the same thing. I think it works pretty well.
Also worth noting is that tactically it almost never makes sense to try to circle up to try to reduce the penalty for finishing a bit below the finish height. At about 5 pts/ minute in Nationals(8/minute in regioals),the time used pretty quickly offsets the 40 points lost for a 200 foot low arrival..
UH

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:35:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:48:44 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:

2000 ft is a little high ;-), but (based on the discussion within this thread) we definitely need to consider moving MFH and any hard deck up to just above a mutually agreed "safe circling altitude." This minimum acceptable safe circling altitude is the key. I think we all agree that any finish height rule is absolutely going to cause a certain subset of pilots to instinctively try and save their points just outside the distance barrier and just below the penalty altitude. 1200 feet AGL is probably the right MFH (with graduated penalties down to 1000 AGL) as a stall spin is PROBABLY recoverable from 800 - 900 feet in most gliders. This is where the gliders "caught" by this rule will be "doing their dance!" At 18 meter nationals last summer (due to the nature of the finishes and the lack of acceptable landing options surrounding the airfield) the MFH was moved up mid contest. There was luke warm debate although the CD managed the discussion very eloquently. Ultimately, a vote was taken and the result was in favor of raising the MFH.. I think it was moved from 700 to 800 AGL. It might have been higher. I do not remember. 1200 ft, is only 400 above 18m Nationals last summer. Clearly, it offers a greater cushion should the unthinkable happen and someone spins... Of course, the other alternative is simply to remove this rule altogether and just allow the pilots to make their own choices. It is a quite a pickle... Personally, I am open to both options. What I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location. Sean F2 On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:18:32 AM UTC-5, Andrew Brayer wrote: Could we please just raise the finish height to 2000 feet and get it over with? i'll just do contest style finishes when i'm not at contests. having made my sarcastic remark, I do appreciate the efforts to make this sport safer. the problem is you cannot prevent accidents universally, this is aviation and racing combined. Instead we need to encourage pilots to make safe decisions rather than trying to protect everyone by implementing rules. my two cents.



I've flown a few contests, something more than 30, since the finish cylinder, in various forms, has been in place. I have never seen anyone trying to circle up to finish height. Obviously there may be a few cases where this happens. My view is that it makes little sense to try to solve issues that occur quite rarely.

Other considerations should include the likely actions after finishing. When one finishes at about 700 feet, the height is about right to enter the pattern and we can expect most pilots to do so pretty mich immediately. We then know where to expect the other traffic to be and recovery is usually orderly.

Raise the height by several hundred feet and now everyone will need to work out a path to get down to pattern height. This introduces another factor we all have to cope with as different pilots do their own way of letting down and entering the pattern.

With the commonly used 700 foot finish, I almost always position myself when finishing so I can directly enter the pattern and land. I note that most others do the same thing. I think it works pretty well.

Also worth noting is that tactically it almost never makes sense to try to circle up to try to reduce the penalty for finishing a bit below the finish height. At about 5 pts/ minute in Nationals(8/minute in regioals),the time used pretty quickly offsets the 40 points lost for a 200 foot low arrival.

UH

I am with UH on this(very rarely he will add!). But the 2 rules(below)cover almost all these discussed issues.(same for Regionals & Nationals).

10.9.1.4 Pilots must pay particular attention to safety during the process of finishing, landing, and rolling to a stop. A pilot whose
finish, pattern, landing, or rollout is deemed unsafe by the CD is subject to a penalty for unsafe operation (Rule 12.2.5.1).

10.9.2.2.1 ‡ Each task shall include a Minimum Finish Height (MFH), set by the CD at least high enough that pilots who obtain
a valid finish can return to the home airfield for a normal pattern and landing.

#711

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

How about this



1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.



You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.



This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.



Hi Tim,



Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like.. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.



Andy

Andy,

You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.

Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.

If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.

Tim

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:



How about this







1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.







You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.







This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.







Hi Tim,







Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.







Andy



Andy,



You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.



Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.



If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.



Tim

agreed, and I agree with what hank said about it getting complicated with people getting set up to do their pattern after arriving at something above pattern altitude.

I personally like the idea of a line still, with the possibility of a rolling finish. i think in principle, you can make it onto the field in a safe manner even if you don't necessarily have enough to make a *full* pattern, but it's like the rolling stones say about getting what you want...

I do think it's egregious that you could be "landed out" even if you make it onto the field in a safe manner.

On 01/22/2014 2:45 PM, Andrew Brayer wrote:
I personally like the idea of a line still, with the possibility of a rolling finish. i think in principle, you can make it onto the field in a safe manner even if you don't necessarily have enough to make a*full* pattern, but it's like the rolling stones say about getting what you want...


I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year. In
my opinion it is the safest option available. Even on a MAT or a Turn
Area Task, all you have to do is set up a mandatory 1 mile steering turn
point (same for all classes) and you're set...

Luke

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:55:32 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year.
In my opinion it is the safest option available...

Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
close to the airport?

See race day 7:
http://www.nadler.com/public/2013_Hobbs/2013_Hobbs.html

Some of us will make sure to have safe options,
but not all, and it cannot be legislated to cover
all conditions anyway...