If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
Jamie,
Great response, and very helpful. Especially knowing that it is a 1/2 km radius circle. In the case I mentioned, a 1/2 km circle around our metal tank is still far enough away that it doesn't infringe on our pattern (I think). I'll need to check it again though. I really like this remote finish idea and will ask around a bit more. As others have pointed out, it seems to be at Contest Director discretion here in the US how this kind of stuff is handled. Cheers! Mark In article , John Doe wrote: Hi Mark A control point in simply an additional turnpoint (as opposed to a remote finish) placed next to the airport so as to bring gliders round to finish from a direction where an appropriate finish gate can be provided. As per UK rules this is the usual 1/2 km radius circle and 20k (I think) thistle. If you aren't sure about the thistle part (I don't know if it has an equivalent in US rules) there is a diagram on page 11 of: http://www.gliding.co.uk/forms/competitionrules2005.pdf For an example of Control Point use look at this task from last years junior nationals: http://www.lasham.org.uk/comps/natio...p?comp=b&ddate =Saturday%2021st%20August Lasham has a very open finish line coming in from the west but no suitable place to locate a finish line from the north, so each day where the task came in from the north an aditional turn point (in this case TP4) was added to force competitors to approach from the west. A glider has not finished until it has crossed an on airfield finish line or entered the finish circle (page 12 of the above pdf). You mentioned the self selection of turnpoints in the US Sports class (I assume that is similar to our Club Class). In this case might it not be an idea to have the provision for a mandatory turn point at the end of the task and say 'you may select the order of your turnpoints but your final turnpoint must be this one'. This would seem to eliminate the whole problem of converging gliders at low level without necessitating the use of such a large finish cylinder (which I have to admit I am sceptical of the value of). There are obvious issues regarding the use of thistles and penalty sectorsif the direction you are approaching the airport is not fixed (in UK competitions, the order of turns is usually fixed), but I think these could be alleviated by the use of a simple 1k cylinder. The idea of the thistle I believe is to allow a pilot to round a turnpoint further out if the conditions at the turnpoint are unfavorable, but as the control point is very near the finish a pilot would be trying to get to that exact location so the thistle could be discarded at this point, leaving a 1 or 2 km radius cylinder as the only point. Cheers Jamie p.s. I have to admit that on that day during the Juniors I forgot about the conrol point and went straight for the finish, recording a gps landout a few k from the airfield, d'oh! At 18:30 11 March 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote: Jamie, That is exactly what I was thinking. A control point. Yes, sort of like what we locally call an IP (initial point) when entering on the 45 for our normal pattern to land. We are fortunate to have a huge metal tank maybe 50 meters diameter that could be used as this remote 'control point' and is in line with the 45 entry (sort of). It is probably 3-4 km away. At 500ft AGL in a 2-33 with a headwind this would be a little close, but in the L-13 or anything sexier it looks ok. Thanks for your post! Control point. I like that. Is it scored as an OZ or a cylinder? Scoring as an OZ would take a little bit of thought, and as a cylinder, I'd expect it'd need to be pretty narrow to not cover the airport. In article , John Doe wrote: Mark, I think what you are getting at is what we in the UK call a control point, a final turnpoint that must be rounded in the normal way, but is only maybe 5-10 km from the airfield, each glider is a few hundred feet (or more depending on the pilots saftey margins) up at this point and after turning the control point, competitors turn to the airfield and dive to a known linear finish gate. There is generally no minimun finish height so often the gate is crossed under 50 ft but as all competitors are coming in from a fixed direction towards a small and clear area of land it eliminates the vast majority of head to head at low altitude issues and I've never seen congestion at a control point myself (altough as my own competition experience is rather limited I won't say it never happens). As for non comp gliders, everywhere I've been competing the daily briefing for non-comp pilots always stressed the comps procedures as well as use of the radio to ensure separation in launch, landing and finishing. As long as the finish gate is suitably chosen to be away from the main landing area and obstacles with space to land after as well as an easy entry into circuit for those with the speed to do so it can be both a safe and an exciting way to finish without the artificial complications of raised finish lines. John, Whilst some of those accidents are attributable to finish gates, I'd certainly question your thinking the last three. Taking the Discus crash for example, in a Discus (in which I have a reasonable if not spectacular amount of time), 500' is adequate, if not totally comfortable, for a decent enough circuit, that crash, as well as the others, from the reports seem to be the whole 'slightly low in the circuit leads to a poor turn leading to a spin in' issue. Where the blame in that lies is the topic for another thread but that, like the other last three, does not seem to be attributable directly to finish gate issues as surely a pilot just making it over a 500' 1 mile finish gate would be in exactly the same situation as someone who has just got a few hundred feet of height from a competition pullup? The others seem to be 'insufficient speed, insufficient time to recover from the spin', afaiks the same situation as trying to scrabble over a start gate at 450' and screwing up. It's been said before but unfortunately you can't legislate good judgement. Cheers Jamie Denton -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
My experience is th low finish line is worse in these conditions, because the pilots are NOT being "funneled" (brought along a small angle sector) to a precise point: they arriving_ spread out more or less along the line from many different directins, including 180 degrees apart, with some hooking the gate and doing a very non-standard pattern entry. I've even seen 180s after a finish, with the glider landing back into the oncoming finishers. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA I'm still on the fence on this one, but here's my "philosophy" on rules. I think the primary purpose of the rules should be to protect me from you (the imperial you - not any of the current posters :-), not to protect me from myself. With that in mind, I feel like mid-air collision avoidance should be the primary purpose of the finishing routine, whether it be gate or cylinder. Given my very selfish goal, which finishing routine does a better job? I have to say that in my first 15 years of racing using a high speed gate, I really never had any close calls. I found the situational awareness to be relatively manageable given good radio ettiquette and a reaonable level of professionalism among the other competitors. I have a lot less experience with the cylinder, but my recollection from the few that I've flown was a slightly increased nervousness about people approaching from numerous directions, resulting in more slumped shoulders (ie. trying to make myself feel like a small target). So, which finishing routine does a better job of facilitating the avoidance of a midair? Erik Mann LS8-18 (P3) |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
John
I know you and respect your opinion, but you are wrong on this one. This was a "relight" accident and the finish cylinder (or lack of one) would have made no difference in this case. Sorry, but this arguement just does not hold water this time! "BB" wrote in message oups.com... I know it's a dead horse, but I can't help but point out that this is exactly the sort of accident that would be a lot less frequent with a 500 foot one mile circle finish. 70-80 kts right over the center of the airport at 51 feet is about the worst place you can be -- too much to land straight, too little to do a pattern. 70 knots, 501 feet, one mile out gives you a lot of time to think about what you're going to do next. 70 knots, 300 feet, one mile out means you're not going to make the flying finish at 500 feet, so you must roll. That decision is over, now use the whole mile to figure out how to land. Yes, pilots should think ahead to the pattern while also managing the stress of a tight glide. Yes, they should decide to do a rolling finish rather than focus entirely on the finishline and then wake up to the fact they have to land the darn thing. But everyone knows this advice, it's repeated over and over at the safety meetings, and we still get a crash like this once every few years -- usually with much worse results. A lower workload reduces the chances any of us will screw up. John Cochrane BB |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
Uh, Brian. The accident John was referring to was the Practice Day
accident, which was a too low, too slow for a pattern return to the airport. One that should have become a rolling finish. Pretty bad when we refer to not just "an accident" at a contest, but "the first" accident at a contest, isn't it? Steve Leonard Brian Glick wrote: John I know you and respect your opinion, but you are wrong on this one. This was a "relight" accident and the finish cylinder (or lack of one) would have made no difference in this case. Sorry, but this arguement just does not hold water this time! |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
Hi Andy
I can't believe I missed that thread. Anyway My FSDO will disagree with your (or the threads) conclusion that a Low pass is Legal. They believe it can be legal but you must approach in a manner from which a landing may be possible. A couple years ago they started letting all the instructors in the area know that they were very likely to cite pilots for violation of the FARs when doing low passes over the airport. Primarily they were targeting many of the High performance homebuilts we have in the area. Their aurgument was that previous cases had determined that a fence post would constitute a Man Made structure(Sorry they didn't tell us the specific case that determined this) and thus operation with 500 feet of it would be a violation. Notice that there is an exception for Take off and Landing. Basically they wanted instructors to start warning these pilots that crossing the Threshold at 249kts at 20 feet with the gear up was obviously not for the purpose of Landing and the exception of this rule would not apply and pilots could be cited for violation of FAR 91.119c I don't know that they have actually enforced this, they may have just been trying to reduce the number of Low passes occuring. Since they were getting fairly regular complaints about the low passes. Brian CFIIG/ASEL. Here is FAR. =A7 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General. top Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes: (a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. (b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft. (c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure. |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
Reminds me of a comment I heard a while back from a FAA ATC Safety Rep.
it went something like this. My Idea of playing it safe is putting another 1/2 mile spacing between two airplanes. An F16 pilot's Idea of playing it safe is firing a second Sidewinder in case the 1st misses. Brian |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
Give us the FAR. Thanks!
|
#68
|
|||
|
|||
"Brian" wrote in message ups.com... "Primarily they were targeting many of the High performance homebuilts we have in the area. Their aurgument was that previous cases had determined that a fence post would constitute a Man Made structure(Sorry they didn't tell us the specific case that determined this) and thus operation with 500 feet of it would be a violation." Wow....not sure where you are but if this were enforced at any other airport (including controlled) that I've been at in the past 34 years most of the nations pilots would have had their tickets revoked. How about a show of hands......is there anybody out there that has NEVER been in an aircraft that was less than 500 feet from this definition of structure without the intention of landing???? OK let's exclude the Volvo owners. Casey Lenox KC Phoenix |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
At 17:00 16 March 2005, Brian wrote:
Their aurgument was that previous cases had determined that a fence post would constitute a Man Made structure(Sorry they didn't tell us the specific case that determined this) struc·ture ( P ) Pronunciation Key (strkchr) n. Something made up of a number of parts that are held or put together in a particular way. Maybe the fence post was attached to a building? Thanks for the FAR 9B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2005 Region 7 Contest | Paul Remde | Soaring | 0 | August 13th 04 03:48 AM |
Survival and Demise Kit; Contest Points | Jim Culp | Soaring | 1 | June 21st 04 04:35 AM |
USA Double Seater Contest | Thomas Knauff | Soaring | 1 | April 13th 04 05:24 PM |
30th Annual CCSC Soaring Contest | Mario Crosina | Soaring | 0 | March 17th 04 06:31 AM |
2003 Air Sailing Contest pre-report synopsis | Jim Price | Soaring | 0 | July 10th 03 10:19 PM |