Contest Safety

MaD wrote:
Sorry to disagree here. It is normally not faster. If it turns out to
be, it means you seriously misjudged your final glide

I often do misjudge my final glide, as do many of the other pilots in
the US contests I've flown in. Sometimes it is due to lift along the way
that I didn't predict. At some airports, it is not possible to land
safely within several miles of the airport. Finishers tend to be high
until they are certain they can cross this bad area, then speed up.

or the last
thermal was something like 4m/s

Yes, we have these also.

AND the runway is extremely short.

Our Regional contests are held at Ephrata (Washington State). Is 3000'
extremely short? It is very wide, and easy to land normally on, but not
when arriving at Vne.

And yes, at most contests I've flown so far it was possible to land
straight ahead arriving with close to Vne at the beginning of the
runway.

At some contest airports I've flown at, this is also possible. Usually,
the glider must then be pushed off the runway, and the pilot must wait
an hour or more until there are no more gliders finishing before the
glider can be pushed back down the runway to the tiedown area. If it is
a wide grass field instead of narrow paved runway, it would be possible
to retrieve the glider right away, but that is rarely the case.

As mentioned, that speed is not the one you should try to have
at that point.

Western US conditions often mean the final glide is flown very fast.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Eric Greenwell schrieb:

...
or the last
thermal was something like 4m/s

Yes, we have these also.

AND the runway is extremely short.

Our Regional contests are held at Ephrata (Washington State). Is 3000'
extremely short? It is very wide, and easy to land normally on, but not
when arriving at Vne.


No, here in central Europe 3000' considered long. Few airfields are
that long. Our Airfield actually does have a bit over 3000' of grass
rwy but is no more than 250' wide at the widest point, only about 190'
at the narrowest. Swiss Nationals 1996: I think it was 28 gliders
landing within just over three minutes. No problem, because evrybody
behaved and rolled out to the side. But I can see the problem with
paved runways from which you don't want to roll off without knowing
exactly you won't damage the glider.

So the last comp we flew in did they have permission in writing I think not
so my 500ft statement is correct.

Not only that the said they could not enforce but in the view of safety they
could penalise you did anyone do a beat up no not to my knowledge.

You are quoting National rules not State.

Are gliders finishing below 50ft at some comps yes.

iv) cross the finish line without descending lower than 50 feet above the

ground or any obstacle thereon and with sufficient energy to

complete a circuit prior to landing.

4.3 Gliders, powered sailplanes and power-assisted sailplanes participating
in a gliding competition which has been approved in writing by CASA may,
when
within 5 kilometres of the finish line, descend below 500 feet above the
ground.

The word is Saftey.

A pilot saw me cross the runway in a tractor to pick up a glider I have 25
years experience on airfields.

The same pilot crosses in front of a tug glider combination taking off with
said tractor with a near miss.

He said Mal does it they came to me Nick they said you can do that anymore.

WHAT THEY FAILED TO MENTION IS I LOOK BEFORE CROSSING active runways.

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

Mal wrote:

So the last comp we flew in did they have permission in writing I think not
so my 500ft statement is correct.

[snipped a bunch of even less comprehensible stuff]

Take a deep breath, Mal, and get in touch with some of the capabilities of
your keyboard -- like punctuation, capitalization, etc.

As it is, it's not possible to understand what it is you think we should know.


Jack

Jack wrote:

Mal wrote:

So the last comp we flew in did they have permission in writing I
think not so my 500ft statement is correct.


[snipped a bunch of even less comprehensible stuff]

Take a deep breath, Mal, and get in touch with some of the capabilities
of your keyboard -- like punctuation, capitalization, etc.

As it is, it's not possible to understand what it is you think we should
know.

So, it's not just me!
--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

"Bob Fidler" wrote in message
...
I agree.

..... snip..... The geezer glide is a fine example of how
dangerous a Finish Gate can be. I have been on the ground unrigging my
glider with guys wizzing over the field from all directions. Also, that
contest is generally flown with short tasks and a lot of gliders finishing
within a few minutes. This years results two destoyed gliders and a
miracle
no one was killed.

These two accidents had absolutely nothing to do with the finish gate. They
both were simply landing accidents. Why do you use non finish gate
accidents to cast a shadow on the finish gate? Do you not have any relevant
info?

Duane

Were these two accidents the result of high speed finishes? I thought
one was the result of misuse of controls. Don't recall the other.

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.

One of these two accidents was due to a poor approach to landing when
several gliders were doing high speed finishes.
The other was the result of misuse of controls when purposely landing for a
relight.

wrote in message
oups.com...
Were these two accidents the result of high speed finishes? I thought
one was the result of misuse of controls. Don't recall the other.