Accident at Szeged WGC

On Jul 30, 12:10*pm, Andreas Maurer wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 10:01:41 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

Boring cylinder finishes anyone?

Already being used at the WGC since today.

Best wishes for the truck driver
Andreas

Bye
Andreas

What a completely senseless and preventable accident. Go back and
look at the vicious comments that were made here when BB suggested all
line finishes should be abolished in favor of the 500' and 1 mile
cylinder. Mr. Larson's death should have been enough to quiet the
fans of low and fast. Gliders have no business flying close to the
ground, same for other aircraft. The organizers and the FAI contest
rule committee have a responsibility to protect bystanders and others,
they failed in their duty.
Herb, J7

On Jul 30, 1:03*pm, Herb wrote:

What a completely senseless and preventable accident. *Go back and
look at the vicious comments that were made here when BB suggested all
line finishes should be abolished in favor of the 500' and 1 mile
cylinder. *Mr. Larson's death should have been enough to quiet the
fans of low and fast. *Gliders have no business flying close to the
ground, same for other aircraft. *

You and JJ seem to be under the impression that the Szeged accident
resulted from a low altitude high speed approach. Reports from the
site indicate the glider, like some others finishing that day, was low
energy.

Do you have new information that conflicts with those reports?

If not, can you please explain how the finish type was a factor in the
accident.

Andy (GY)

You and JJ seem to be under the impression that the Szeged accident
resulted from a low altitude high speed approach. *Reports from the
site indicate the glider, like some others finishing that day, was low
energy.

Do you have new information that conflicts with those reports?

If not, can you please explain how the finish type was a factor in the
accident.

Andy (GY)

Low energy becomes evident at the end of your finish. The guy who
can't make the 500'/1mile cylinder calls for a straight-in landing.
The guy that finds himself with low energy while trying to make a 50'
finish line eats the fence/ hits a truck!
JJ

On Jul 30, 2:47*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:

Low energy becomes evident at the end of your finish. The guy who
can't make the 500'/1mile cylinder calls for a straight-in landing.
The guy that finds himself with low energy while trying to make a 50'
finish line eats the fence/ hits a truck!
JJ

A low energy final glide should be evident long before reaching either
the finish cylinder or one mile from a finish line. If there is no
lift and a marginal glide to the airport the choice is to either land
out or try to get over the fence. The pilot who passed through the
finish cylinder at best L/D and 200 ft is in exactly the same
situation as the guy at best L/D and 200ft and a mile out going for a
line finish or a rolling finish. The finish type makes no difference
when there is insufficient energy to make the airport but the pilot
continues to try for the airport.

The argument that the finish cylinder would increase safety in this
scenario may be valid if the pilot has the option to stop and work
lift to get up to minimum finish altitude. It may also be true that
there is an increase in safety if pilot choses to landout after making
the cylinder finish. That requires landable areas between the
cylinder circumference and the airport.

As a result of the accident WGC has changed from a line finish to a
cylinder finish. The Friday task sheet defines the finish as cylinder
R=3.0 km with a 140M QNH min finish altitude. According to the
turnpoints database Szeged is at 80M. Unless my calculations are
wrong the required L/D from a valid finish to the airport is 50:1.

The same choce remains - try to clear the fence or landout. The
points penalty for landing out is gone though, and maybe that's enough
to make it safer. Let's hope so.


Andy

On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:50:47 -0700 (PDT), Andy
wrote:


A low energy final glide should be evident long before reaching either
the finish cylinder or one mile from a finish line. If there is no
lift and a marginal glide to the airport the choice is to either land
out or try to get over the fence.

Sounds simple in theory, but seems to be harder in reality.

A typical accident report can be found he
http://www.bfu-web.de/cln_005/nn_223...tar3_Sdier.pdf

Even for the non-German speaking readers of this newsgroup the
flightpath plot should make fascinating reading - the pilot tried to
follow his team mates who happened to be 100 ft higher.

Fortunately in this case the pilot was only slightly injured.

Cheers
Andreas

On Jul 30, 6:50*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jul 30, 2:47*pm, JJ Sinclair wrote:

Low energy becomes evident at the end of your finish. The guy who
can't make the 500'/1mile cylinder calls for a straight-in landing.
The guy that finds himself with low energy while trying to make a 50'
finish line eats the fence/ hits a truck!
JJ

A low energy final glide should be evident long before reaching either
the finish cylinder or one mile from a finish line. *If there is no
lift and a marginal glide to the airport the choice is to either land
out or try to get over the fence. *The pilot who passed through the
finish cylinder at best L/D and 200 ft is in exactly the same
situation as the guy at best L/D and 200ft *and a mile out going for a
line finish or a rolling finish. *The finish type makes no difference
when there is insufficient energy to make the airport but the pilot
continues to try for the airport.

The argument that the finish cylinder would increase safety in this
scenario may be valid if the pilot has the option to stop and work
lift to get up to minimum finish altitude. *It may also be true that
there is an increase in safety if pilot choses to landout after making
the cylinder finish. *That requires landable areas between the
cylinder circumference and the airport.

As a result of the accident WGC has changed from a line finish to a
cylinder finish. The Friday task sheet defines the finish as cylinder
R=3.0 km with a 140M QNH min finish altitude. *According to the
turnpoints database Szeged is at 80M. *Unless my calculations are
wrong the required L/D from a valid finish to the airport is 50:1.

The same choce remains - try to clear the fence or landout. *The
points penalty for landing out is gone though, and maybe that's enough
to make it safer. Let's hope so.

Andy

It's actually pretty straightforward. The accident happened 20km or
30km out. The impact with the truck was just the final act.

Here's the deal. If you have 500 feet dialed in for your final glide
because that's the competition finish floor with a point penalty for
coming in low,, what are you gonna do when you take that last climb
30km out? If you're a smart racer, you're gonna put 500 feet plus
maybe another 200 feet of cushion in your arrival height and climb
accordingly. Then, you'll monitor your glide against that 500 foot
floor, not against a 0 foot arrival. If you're losing against that
500 foot floor, you might even stop to pick up an extra 100ft if you
hit a bump. Worst case, you blow the glide by 100ft and get a 40pt
penalty. You've still got 300 feet over the road and can easily make
the airport.

Worst case if you're aiming for 0 ft arrival, you take out an innocent
bystander and/or yourself.

Hey, it can still go all pear-shaped, and you end up with a very
marginal glide. But, by moving the floor to 500, you're simply re-
defining the combat arena and giving pilots an incentive to take risks
for points, not their lives.

Erik Mann
LS8-18 (P3)

Andy,

Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. What is missing
is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. This means that when
you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

On Aug 2, 7:43*pm, Dave Springford wrote:
Andy,

Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. *What is missing
is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. *This means that when
you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

.... and also add that the glider will probably be flying faster when
reaching the finish ring, so will have a bit more energy to spare

or if it doesn't, it can land short if necessary

On Aug 2, 11:43*am, Dave Springford wrote:
Andy,

Your 50:1 math is right and wrong at the same time. *What is missing
is the fact the the centre of the 3 km finish cylinder is located at
the opposite end of the 4000 ft landing runway. *This means that when
you cross the finish line at about 200 ft agl you are about 1.8 km
from the touchdown point (and 3 km from the other end of the runway).
This gives L/D of 30:1 to touchdown which is sufficient for the ships
flying in the 15/18/ Open Classes.

Thanks for the correction Dave. I went back and looked at the last 3
days task sheets and now see that when 16 is the landing runway then
Szeged34 is the finish centre, and when 36 is active Szeged16 defines
the centre. I had missed that.

Andy (GY)

On Jul 30, 5:17*pm, Andy wrote:
On Jul 30, 1:03*pm, Herb wrote:

What a completely senseless and preventable accident. *Go back and
look at the vicious comments that were made here when BB suggested all
line finishes should be abolished in favor of the 500' and 1 mile
cylinder. *Mr. Larson's death should have been enough to quiet the
fans of low and fast. *Gliders have no business flying close to the
ground, same for other aircraft. *

You and JJ seem to be under the impression that the Szeged accident
resulted from a low altitude high speed approach. *Reports from the
site indicate the glider, like some others finishing that day, was low
energy.

Do you have new information that conflicts with those reports?

If not, can you please explain how the finish type was a factor in the
accident.

Andy (GY)

The difference is that the direct finish, flown perfectly means you
cross the finish line(airport boundary?) at exactly your average speed
for the task and at as little altitude as you dare. It doesn't take
much to have that go wrong.
The issue of safety of people other than the pilots is mostly a factor
of whether potential victims are in the flight path as opposed to
finishes across a lake(like Finland or big fields as we had in
Germany).
I suspect we will see a trend, even in Europe, away from direct
finishes.
Also a factor is this is the "big race" and people will take risks
they would not take any other time.
I speak from experience on this.
FWIW
UH