SENIORS CONTEST

U and I are not going to agree on this...just give
the 'skills to do this' nonsense a rest.

What we choose to do is not linked to skills....

U wanna do this every flight...be my guest




At 02:30 18 March 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:

'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
message ...


If these things are so important to u....why not finish
every flight this way?

Maybe it will scare you just thinking about it but
we DO finish every flight
this way in Arizona! In fact on a day that none of
us could get over tow
release height I saw one of my esteemed colleagues
do a pass down the runway
at about 50 feet. He was having fun and we all enjoyed
watching it since it
was pretty much the highlight of the day. It is nothing
less than a
precision manuever and if it bothers you and you don't
have the skills to
perform it then by no means are any of us pushing you
to do it but please do
not criticize those of us that enjoy it and do it well.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

"Stewart Kissel" wrote in
message .

What we choose to do is not linked to skills....


Maybe this explains some things..... ;-)

KC

Stewart,

I think you've lit on something. The difference between glider pilots
and racers. Yes, there is a difference. If I am not improving my skills
in some meaningful, measurable way, I lose interest in a sport very,
very quickly. It is ALL about the skills. I know Kilo Charlie well. I
know he gets this. So do many other pilots. It doesn't make us better
or worse. It simply means we operate under a different set of
priorities. Safety is one of them. But I think we're willing to put a
lot more effort into developing the skills necessary to be safe in more
varied and dynamic enivornments than many other pilots.

A decade ago, the sport lost one of chiefest skills: navigation. More
recently it has been peleton tactics. Some changes have been well
received: I didn't mind discarding the skills I'd learned in managing
the high speed start gate, by far the most dangerous environment we
faced. But recent attempts to use "safety" as a rubric for
ill-considered changes in rules and practices have increasingly "dumbed
down" the sport without really improving its safety. Seems safer. But
seems ain't is.

OC

At 02:30 18 March 2005, Kilo Charlie wrote:

'Stewart Kissel' wrote in
message ...


If these things are so important to u....why not finish
every flight this way?

Maybe it will scare you just thinking about it but
we DO finish every flight
this way in Arizona!

Yup, consistent with local conditions and safety considerations
- like anything you do in flying.

Maybe we should have contest tasks that are restricted
to gliding distance from the home field and only allow
one competitor on the course at a time - that would
help safety a lot.

:-)

9B

At 02:00 18 March 2005, Stewart Kissel wrote:
I get tired of the low-finish proponents talking about
being braver, more skilled or less prissy.

If these things are so important to u....why not finish
every flight this way? I still manage to go to the
airport without being 'worried or scared' and fly without
doing the damn things.

U guys are coming dangerously close to appearing to
push a macho-man agenda to justify this manuever


I agree - since this is about personal preference and
not safety, we should not ascribe wuss status to those
who prefer not fly a particular way, or macho status
to those who do. By the same token, it's equally unjust
to call something unsafe simply because it's not within
a particular individual's personal preference.

Everyone should fly within their personal comfort zone
- but we shouldn't legislate to the most restrictive
preference. If you don't like finishing below 1, 2
or 3,000', don't, but let's not write the rules that
way - otherwise someone will want us to ban cross-country
flying altogether.

9B

I disagree, Andy. Using your rational we could safely raise the nations
highway speed to 100. If you feel confident and know your abilities, go
ahead and drive 100. If not, don't do that. Problem is, not all us
incompetent folks know we're incompetent. Rules must be written to
protect the new / incompetent pilot. I know of 5 accidents associated
with the finish line and we just had a near-miss at the line.......10
or 15 feet..............Wow.
Think about that folks, one more liability suit and we might not be
able to find an insurance company to cover what we're doing. That would
solve this finish gate controversy, once and for all. No more contests!

Another troubling issue with me is our flirting with the FAR's. I can't
remember a site where I wasn't below 500 feet over people, places or
things as I made my dive through the finish line. Even at Hobbs, which
has got to be the most wide open place in the world, I was close to the
limit as I crossed the highway, finishing from the east, then I flew
over the golf course and over the tie-downs, before hitting the line at
50 feet. The feds don't enforce all the rules, they can't, but just
have an accident and watch the rule book come out.

Anybody want to talk about our pull-up being called acrobatic? "A
maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircrafts
attitude..................not neccesary for normal flight" Not to be
initiated below 1500 feet, how about 50 feet? and with spectators "open
air assembly of persons".

There is a better way,
JJ Sinclair

At 16:30 18 March 2005, wrote:
Using your rational we could safely raise the nations
highway speed to 100.

I'm sure you remember when the limits across sparsely
populated highway stretches in many western states
were posted 'reasonable and proper' - no more. The
only demonstrably 100% safe highway speed is one where
all passengers can survive a head-on collision or one
into a bridge abutment. I'd put that at around 15 mph.
What speed would you call safe enough? I for one
was happy when the limit on Interstate highways went
from 55 to 75 mph - sounds like maybe you thought it
was a bad idea.

I know of 5 accidents associated
with the finish line and we just had a near-miss at
the line.......10
or 15 feet..............Wow.

I think the linkage between using a gate and these
accidents has been questioned previously. Nevertheless,
we should try to learn from these and other piloting
mistakes as it is serious business. We also should
try to avoid overreacting so we don't sap all the fun
out of racing over time.

'A maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircrafts
attitude..................not neccesary for normal
flight' Not to be
initiated below 1500 feet

I'm thinking this means that thermalling below 1500'
is also against the FARs because the entry is an abrupt
change in attitude and circling involves 'aerobatic'
bank angles.

9B

The difference between glider pilots
and racers. Yes, there is a difference. If I am not
improving my skills
in some meaningful, measurable way, I lose interest
in a sport very,
very quickly. It is ALL about the skills. doesn't
make us better
or worse. It simply means we operate under a different
set of
priorities. Safety is one of them.

SNIP-
Agreed


But I think we're willing to put a
lot more effort into developing the skills necessary
to be safe in more
varied and dynamic enivornments than many other pilots.

SNIP-

Sorta agree...there are more avenues to explore then
just racing...but I see your point.


But recent attempts to use 'safety' as a rubric for
ill-considered changes in rules and practices have
increasingly 'dumbed
down' the sport without really improving its safety.
Seems safer. But
seems ain't is.

SNIP-
Yes...I have to deal with high altitude airports living
in the mts of Colorado...does constantly dealing with
nasty conditions around the airport make me 'more skilled'--not
really. I would prefer not to have to deal with these
conditions...but then I would not fly. And I don't
necesarily need those from other environments telling
me when these conditions are unsafe.

But on the flip side....I don't encourage flying in
marginal conditions as a test of 'skill or bravery
or whatever'.

Casey, Casey, Casey,

Does the word 'denial' mean anything to you? I make
it 5 accidents in the Neanderthal gate, but they were
all caused by 'poor judgement' and or 'poor pilotage',
right?

Tell me something, how does this near mid-air at the
Seniors, differ from the ASK-21 that pulled up into
the Cub at Turf, resulting in the tragic loss of 4
people? They were both flying in each others blind
spot. One pulled up (starting a loop) and hit the Piper
Cub on down-wind. Doesn't count, right? Didn't happen
in a contest.

I'll say it again, there is a better way. Why don't
we drop, once and for all, this Neanderthal Gate and
go with the proven finish cylinder to score all our
races?

JJ Sinclair (Wuss)

Re the specific incident you report.....once again
it was poor judgement and
pilotage on the overtaking pilots part. If the pilot
that was being
overtaken called in at 4 miles prior to the other then
it is the following
gliders responsiblity to locate him and if he does
not see him then it is
his responsibility to report that. This is no different
than what occurs at
nearly every controlled airport in the nation hourly.
A gate at least
allows meaningful position fixes vs. the cylinder finish.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Take a look at the responses here....most are wanting to know why the radio
wasn't used to avoid this conflict. I'll repeat the idea that the radio is
only useful when you have some way of identifying your position relative to
other pilots. That is easy with the finish gate. Explain to me how you
could tell another pilot where you are if you just heard them call 4 miles
and you are at the same distance but do not see them with a cylinder finish.
Landmarks don't help...you're too high. Distance from the edge or center
doesn't help...you could be on a collision course anywhere along the way
since you are most likely on differing tangents but both headed toward the
runway.

Your facts are incorrect re the Turf midair. For the record the glider was
in an established acro box on the downside of a loop and the Cub was on a
downwind through the middle of the box which he knew was hot during a lot of
the day. Your using this to support your point is lost on me since I would
argue the opposite or that it at very least that it has nothing to do with
this thread. An analogous situation with the contest gate finish would be
that they would both have been entering downwind, called it on the radio and
if getting a no joy would have kept talking until they did.

Let's try this.....the parcel of cubic atmosphere that a glider might be in
when calling a finish with the cylinder is many fold greater than that with
the gate. That allows many more possibilities for unseen conflicts and
fewer possibilities for being able to identify where you are in relationship
to the other folks. OK you math guys.....help me out with some
numbers....you out there 9B?!

You should have been a politician with your Neanderthal comments and use of
hyperbole JJ. When your argument has no basis in fact that is all that's
left I suppose. Re the denial....what is it that you don't get about some
of those stall spins being unrelated to contests or are you now going to
attribute all stall spin accidents to gate finishes?

This is a good and useful discussion but please let's keep it to the facts
and not get so emotional about it.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix