Contest Safety

As we see, there are many possibilities and variations on finishes.

If you set a minimun finish altitude on a finish cylinder, you can do the
same for the finish line. No difference there.

It is good to have the line/cylinder so that you can finish and land
directly. But if there are no trees etc. before the airfield, you still have
the low high energy finishes. They just open the airbrakes in high speed
just after the finishline and land straight. So it can still be quite
dangerous.
The finish line should be before the airfield and you should have there a
minumum altitude limit. Or ?

Soaring is not a spectator sport, but we all go out to see the finishes. But
there is not much to see, if the gliders come in slowly and land straight.
Okay, you still have some drama in it, if you know the start times so you
can see who has flown fastest.

-But if there are no trees etc. before the airfield, you still have
the low high energy finishes. They just open the airbrakes in high
speed
just after the finishline and land straight. So it can still be quite
dangerous.
---

And what exactly is dangerous about that?

MaD wrote:
I don't get it: Why on earth do so many people pull up and do a
circuit?

Because this gives me the opportunity to switch from "final glide" mode
to "landing mode" at a low airspeed. I can't imagine opening my dive
brakes at 140 knots!

There must be a difference in the US and the IGC definition of
the finish gate/line. Can someone explain? Why is it not normal (at
least judging from what I read here it isn't in the US) to land
straight in after the finishline?

At most competitions with a line, it is located near the middle of the
airport.

A pilot is expected to cross it above 50', then land. If below 50',
then the pilot must have announced a rolling finish and may roll or fly
through, but be in a "slow" landing configuration.

I use an arrival height of 700' in my glide computer. So if all is
perfect, I would cross the airport at this altitude at a normal
interthermal cruise speed. If I hit sink within a mile or so of the
line, I still have the margin to cross either high enough to make a
circuit or do a straight in. If I hit lift, then I speed up and as I
get within a mile or so, I ignore the computer and use my eyeballs as I
push to as fast as I consider safe for the conditions. But I plan on
entering the downwind leg at no less than about 400' and continually
reasess the situation as I fly the last couple of miles.

In a paper by John Cochrane (Safer Finishes) there's a list of
accidents. More than half of them have nothing to do with the finishing
procedure. They could have happened just the same with any other
procedure, some even without a contest, some did'nt even happen at the
airfield. All the others (6) are the pullup-stall-spin type. So again:
why pull up?

Because the pull up is done from a high speed I built up after
determining the altitude margin I had was good enough to make the dive
and pull up. This cuts a few seconds off my time - once I've realized
it is safe to do so. The accidents happen when the pilot is only
thinking of crossing the line and not planning ahead and makes the dive
with not enough energy. I have the option to fly a constant speed and
arrive at 6-700' over midfield, or to dive at the line, then pull up
and agin be at 6-700' on my downwind entry.

You propose I aim for the end of the runway and arrive with near zero
altitude and "some" energy. I don't like this as it puts me too low
and too slow over potentially unlandable terrain. I then am forced to
land straight ahead without the opportunity to get a good look at the
landing area. I also must put down the wheel, lower flaps and extend
the airbrakes while putting more and more runway behind me.

I like to fly a final approach with full flaps and nearly full
spoilers, with a plan to land somewhere convenient in the first 50% of
the runway. If an obstacle appears suddenly, I can close spoilers,
then flaps and float past, then set up another approach as far down the
runway as is safe. Or make an S turn to an adjacent landing area.

After flying dozens of finishes at international comps and many more in
various versions at national and regional comps I am absolutely
convinced that a finishline at ground level at the beginning of the
runway and then landing straight ahead is the safest method, especially
when many competitors arrive at the same time. I'd hate to be in a
situation with ten or more gliders all on circuit at the same time not
knowing who's going to turn when and where because everybody has his
own idea of where the pattern is.

At all competitions I have flown, the organizer or gatekeeper suggests
a pattern direction and everyone finishes, then pulls up to pattern
speed and flies the downwind leg (if possible). At this time, the
higher glider may orbit to let the lower one go ahead, or may extend
the downwind leg, etc. Some traffic marshalling occurs in the final
glide, but most of it occurs on the downwind leg while everyone is
operating at a nice leisurely pace compared to the fast final glide.

I have landed behind 8-10 or more sailplanes in this way without any
problem. We were all separated by about a towrope length while abeam
the midfield, all the way to final approach. No problems! Had we been
doing a straight in approach, the gliders would all be flying different
speeds over the threshold and the one behind would have no way to judge
the energy carried by the one in front.

I have also participated in dozens of competitions over the 30+ years I
have been soaring and all of the unsafe finish operations I have seen
involved a single pilot not showing good planning or judgement. I
can't think of any cases where multiple sailplanes were involved in a
(potential) incident, one always was able to take necessary action to
avoid the errant pilot and the possibility of a collision was averted
with plenty of time and room left over. (If you aren't constantly
averting a collision in a thermal, then I don't want to be anywhere
near you!)

I'm not trying to cop out with the "pilot error" excuse here, but it
really is a strong factor. So far most other suggestions for the
contest finish just move the error zone to a different location, but do
not eliminate or even reduce it. In another post it was mentioned that
Mr Knauff thinks we ALL need to learn how to fly better, and I agree.
We should strive to make every approach and landing be perfect at all
phases. We should strive to make our flying be predictable, so the
ones around us can anticipate our next move. Then, it won't matter if
the pattern entry was made from 10' and redline or 1000' and minimum
sink speed. After a couple days at a contest, I know which pilots I
can trust - too bad I can't trust everyone!

Consider the 2-lane highway. Cars pass head on at closing speeds
approaching 150 mph at a distance of less than 10'. It works very well
until some impaired person screws it all up. And if you'd show this to
a remote jungle dweller, he would think we were nuts.

-Tom
ASH-26E 5Z

Bob,

beware of riding the safety high horse to move a political agenda. The
discussion of contest safety is ongoing and valid, but it will not
serve you as a tool for revisionism. Perhaps a separate thread would
serve you better, but I'll offer this snippit of advice:

Glass Houses!!

Adding visibility to the NSF debacle may get you closer attention than
you really want. If you believe you've done the right thing, live with
it. If you feel the need to market it, be prepared to suffer the slings
of those who think you've run afoul of the organization's charter.

This warning should be well taken. The whole NSF mess has died down, and
happily is forgotten, why bring it up again? There is no one out there that
objected to Charlie Spratt's dismissal......IF, the rest of the NSF board
would have been consulted, and they were not, and if some very good reasons
were given for his removal, and they were not. And Mr. Dittert, you can't
follow the rules either, so just go away and leave soaring alone! Regardless
of what you think, starts out the top of the cylinder are allowed, and
generate far less criticism that the finish gate does.
wrote in message
ups.com...
Bob,

beware of riding the safety high horse to move a political agenda. The
discussion of contest safety is ongoing and valid, but it will not
serve you as a tool for revisionism. Perhaps a separate thread would
serve you better, but I'll offer this snippit of advice:

Glass Houses!!

Adding visibility to the NSF debacle may get you closer attention than
you really want. If you believe you've done the right thing, live with
it. If you feel the need to market it, be prepared to suffer the slings
of those who think you've run afoul of the organization's charter.

There's something about the presence of a photographer
that brings out the idiot in us. I remember a Nationals
at Uvalde a few years back. The CD made an announcement
on contest frequency that the local TV news people
were at the field and how about some 'worm-burners'.
Well, you can guess what came next. I saw guys pulling
up to clear bales of hay. As one pilot made a slight
heading correction, he caught his left wing in some
corn. The drag from this started the ship into a cartwheel
maneuver to the left in the direction of the Finish
Gate tent that contained the CD and a half dozen kids.
Luckily, his speed was great enough to overpower the
drag from the corn and he was able to get his wing
out of the corn and subsequently made a safe landing.

Food for thaught,
JJ Sinclair