Visulalizing the Finish Cylinder

At 18:30 22 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:

It serves as nothing more than
a starting point for our low altitude air show, one
that violates FAR's, also.


Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
also violates the FARs
unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
the way to to the
landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
nose-up climb
upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
'aerobatics'.

JJ will be insepcting all GPS traces at Montague to
insure violaters get DNCs
for the day. Right?

9B

, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
also violates the FARs
unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
the way to to the
landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
nose-up climb
upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
'aerobatics'.

There is no FAR that says you can't go below 500 feet
anywhere as long as you are in the act of landing.
If I leave the 1 mile cylinder at or below 500 feet,
you can bet I'm in the act of landing and will do so,
just as soon as I get to the airport.

JJ will be insepcting all GPS traces at Montague to
insure violaters get DNCs
for the day. Right?

No, but you bring up a good point. Heaven forbid, should
we have an accident, we are producing a complete log
of everything we are doing, complete with altitude,
time and exact position. The feds won't even have to
bring out their tape measure, will they?
JJ

"John Sinclair" wrote in message
...
(snip)
No, but you bring up a good point. Heaven forbid, should
we have an accident, we are producing a complete log
of everything we are doing, complete with altitude,
time and exact position. The feds won't even have to
bring out their tape measure, will they?
JJ

I agree with your stand on the cylinder vs.gate, JJ, but I don't agree about
the logger. Nowhere in the FAR's that I know of does it say that I need to
show my logger (or its files) to the FAA. They can check my pilot's
license, my identification, my glider paperwork, maybe my parachute packing
card, but not my logger. They will still need their tape measure. If they
want to inspect the logger post mortem, OK, it probably won't matter much to
me if I was legal or not at that point.

Actually, my heirs may not want the FAA or the insurance company looking at
the logger post mortem, either. I don't know if they would prevail in such
a case.

Sorry that I am taking this off topic.
-Bob Korves

At 22:00 22 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
also violates the FARs
unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
the way to to the
landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
nose-up climb
upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
'aerobatics'.

There is no FAR that says you can't go below 500 feet
anywhere as long as you are in the act of landing.
If I leave the 1 mile cylinder at or below 500 feet,
you can bet I'm in the act of landing and will do so,
just as soon as I get to the airport.

Whoa just a minute there partner, the distance between
the cylinder edge
and the pattern IP is no more a part of the landing
pattern than the path
through the finish gate is. If the logic is 'I'm low
so I must be landing', that
applies to the gate as well. So if we are going to
be literal about the FARs
then you are not in the act of landing until you enter
the official pattern,
everything else is flying cross country below 500'
- including the path from
the cylinder to the airport. QED.

The feds won't even have to
bring out their tape measure, will they?

Talk about adding insult to injury - let's hope not.
If you are serious about
your interpretation of the FARs then you'll need to
be prepared to enforce
penalties on anyone you dips below 500' before entering
the pattern. You
could be set up for a liability issue if you don't.


9B

9B,
Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make
a straight in landing. I Disagree.

Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention
of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500
feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't
want to justify to the federalies.
JJ

"John Sinclair" wrote in message
...
9B,
Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make
a straight in landing. I Disagree.

Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention
of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500
feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't
want to justify to the federalies.
JJ



Your logic says I'd get in trouble (in an airplane) for doing a practice ILS
approach to minimums, overflying the runway, and then entering the pattern
for landing.

In airplanes I've done 50 ft, 150 kts, holding the gear low approaches at
both San Jose and Oakland Internationals, and at NAS Moffett Field. I did
hear from the FAA on one of them; the controller called "nice approach".

At 01:30 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
9B,
Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make
a straight in landing. I Disagree.

I think you can do pretty much anything necessary to
keep the airplane in
one piece in an emergency. If you're saying you can
fly whatever type of
pattern you want at your own discretion, than we probably
do disagree. I
would consider a straight-in landing an emergency and
you'd probably be
justified even if you cut off other traffic in the
pattern to do it. If you're
doing it because you deliberately went for the bottom
of the 500' cylinder
without enough energy to make a proper pattern then
you are probably
subject to penalty by the Feds - at least as you've
defined the rules.

Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention
of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500
feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't
want to justify to the federalies.

You yourself said it's legal to go low at the edge
of the cylinder then pull up
to 500' to nick the bottom - and that it had specifically
been approved by
the rules committee. Are you now arguing against this?
It seems like you
are splitting hairs about low passes. A best L/D finish
at 500' and 1 mile will
leave you at a bit over 300' over the airport (+/-
wherever the pattern is).
So what's a low pass for you? 299', 199', 99'? Seems
like your definition is
tailored to whatever fits the cylinder finish. To
be clear, I think gate
finishes are legal as long as you don't buzz the FBO,
the parking lot, etc. I
think arguing that they are illegal also puts cylinder
finishes in that
category unless you are willing to really torture the
facts to argue that
something different happens between 50' and 300'.

The other thing that hasn't really been discussed is
how much any of these
rules affect pilot decision-making. I for one set up
my final glides at a
minimum of Mc=4 plus 1000' irrespective of the type
of finish used. Why?
Because if I am going to have enough energy for a gate
finish, I'll be at
500' with a ton of energy at 1 mile anyway. Some people
seem to think
that if you add 500' to the finish altitude people
will add 500' to their final
glides. I seriously doubt this. So I'm not sure if
we've bought ourselves
anything close to what the advocates claim in terms
of additional margin
since I also believe a pilot at 800' and three miles
is more likely to press on
that a pilot at 300' and three miles. Do I think the
cylinder is less safe? I'll
reserve judgement until we have more information about
stall/spin
incidents at the edge of the cylinder, but for now
I don't think it's worse. Do
I think it's better? A glider at 100 knots at 50'
has about the same energy
as a glider at 300 feet and pattern speed. That's not
a big difference.

Does it take some of the poetry out of the sport? Yes,
I think it does. Not
everybody cares about poetry though.

The point I've conceded is that the modern 'fly anywhere'
tasks make it
logistically harder to implement gate finishes, so
I think they won't get used
much - because of the hassle if for no other reason.

9B

Andy,

You point out many of the unknowns that concern me, while advocates are
taking a "don't worry, be happy" approach to addressing them. I keep
looking for the "name" that characterizes what I think of the
cylinder... You've helped me find it.

"The three monkeys finish"

I'm not aware of a cylinder being used for non MAT tasks
at the Stds, 15s, 18, or Open Nats... that is, we haven't tested it in
conditions where a dozen or more gliders of equal performance might
approach the cyliner in a very short span of time.
Chris O'Callaghan


In the 2002 Sports & 18m Nationals in Lubbock we had about 81 gliders in the
contest - about evenly split between sports & 18m. A finish cylinder was
used and in 10 days x 80 gliders i don't recall any serious issues. The 18m
gliders were more often finishing in a short span of time. I've heard a lot
of Theories on why the finish cylinder is unsafe, but almost all the
contests I've done in the last 3+ years have used cylinders - in Practice my
opinion is they are safer than finish gates.

Years ago when flying gates the CD changed start & finish directions on
different days. I remember at least 2 guys finishing in the wrong direction
through the gate. I never want to see that again.

Chris R

Andy,
FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within
500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary
for takeoff and landing.

If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile
cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the
field and make any appropriate pattern, including no
pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to
dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder
if there is any people, places or things there.

I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves,
but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line?
500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate
crew is sitting at the start of the finish line.
Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish
cylinder.
JJ