Logan contest reporting now only on Soaring Cafe

On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 wrote:









On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, "
wrote:

On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:

I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
your articles very much.

If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
are welcome to do that.

Paul Remde

"T8" wrote in message

...
On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter wrote:

I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).

As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
site.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Me too!!

Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!

P3

Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
attempts to gag posts like this.

Darryl

Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
happened!

On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:





On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, "
wrote:

On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:

I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
your articles very much.

If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
are welcome to do that.

Paul Remde

"T8" wrote in message

...
On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter wrote:

I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).

As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
site.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Me too!!

Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!

P3

Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
attempts to gag posts like this.

Darryl

Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
happened!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
this crapshoot.

On Jul 23, 7:07*pm, Albert Thomas wrote:
On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:









On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, "
wrote:

On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:

I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
your articles very much.

If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
are welcome to do that.

Paul Remde

"T8" wrote in message

...
On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter wrote:

I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).

As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
site.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Me too!!

Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!

P3

Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
attempts to gag posts like this.

Darryl

Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
happened!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
this crapshoot.

First of all, let's put a number on the gliders damaged flying at
Logan this past week.

I count two that I would regard as damaged (needing calls to the
insurance rep), both landing mishaps - one on a rocky mountain meadow,
the other in tall barley. If you count the plane that lost its tail
skid and the one that lost a wingtip skid (mine), you could stretch it
to four. I've no idea where the "5" damaged gliders number comes
from. Based on my experience of flying out west, 2 out of 60 is
pretty much par for a contest.

The terrain can be intimidating for folks not used to flying in the
mountains, and on my first flights here I am also treading warily
cross-country. Climbing out from low on the mountains is common in
many parts of the world and if you're not comfortable "sticking your
wings in the trees" as one here put it, you're better off somewhere
else. It's definitely not a site for beginners or wusses.

There have been more landouts than usual, but quite a few resulted
from unexpected weather rather than stiff tasks. I flew Friday's
regional FAI task and did the east/west transition for the first time
and had no problems, so I've no idea why others found it tough.

I was initially concerned about crowding on the ridges, but I have
seen many worse sites around the world and have not felt at particular
risk here. (I would like my Flarm though. Please! You know, the one
that was supposedly being delivered last May!)

I've no idea where the SAA censorship came from. Considering that
blogs are personal accounts, I see nothing major to complain about. I
might describe things differently from my perspective, but that's how
it goes.

Mike

On Jul 23, 9:58*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:
On Jul 23, 7:07*pm, Albert Thomas wrote:









On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, "
wrote:

On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:

I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
your articles very much.

If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
are welcome to do that.

Paul Remde

"T8" wrote in message

...
On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter wrote:

I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).

As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
site.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Me too!!

Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!

P3

Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
attempts to gag posts like this.

Darryl

Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
happened!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
this crapshoot.

First of all, let's put a number on the gliders damaged flying at
Logan this past week.

I count two that I would regard as damaged (needing calls to the
insurance rep), both landing mishaps - one on a rocky mountain meadow,
the other in tall barley. *If you count the plane that lost its tail
skid and the one that lost a wingtip skid (mine), you could stretch it
to four. *I've no idea where the "5" damaged gliders number comes
from. *Based on my experience of flying out west, 2 out of 60 is
pretty much par for a contest.

The terrain can be intimidating for folks not used to flying in the
mountains, and on my first flights here I am also treading warily
cross-country. *Climbing out from low on the mountains is common in
many parts of the world and if you're not comfortable "sticking your
wings in the trees" as one here put it, you're better off somewhere
else. *It's definitely not a site for beginners or wusses.

There have been more landouts than usual, but quite a few resulted
from unexpected weather rather than stiff tasks. * I flew Friday's
regional FAI task and did the east/west transition for the first time
and had no problems, so I've no idea why others found it tough.

I was initially concerned about crowding on the ridges, but I have
seen many worse sites around the world and have not felt at particular
risk here. *(I would like my Flarm though. *Please! *You know, the one
that was supposedly being delivered last May!)

I've no idea where the SAA censorship came from. *Considering that
blogs are personal accounts, I see nothing major to complain about. I
might describe things differently from my perspective, but that's how
it goes.

Mike

Mike ,
First , it was a pleasure getting to know you and hearing your WX
reports every Morning . Second , lets set the damaged ships aside for
a moment and look at the number of competitors ( In Sports Class ) who
finished tasks on certain days . Many who did finish and did well in
the scoring where complaining that , given the conditions , the tasks
where intimidating and they were having to take unnecessary risks . I
don't know what the normal ratio of finishers is but 1 out of 3 or 4
seems awfully low . This was brought up at Thursdays Pilot Meeting and
the response was essentially " If I say its safe to search this
Beach ........ " . The SSA should allow this to be addressed on the
Website . Lets hope the conditions improve for the remaining
Nationals tasks and this probably will cease to be much of an issue .
Thanks for your service at the contest .
R4

On Jul 25, 8:27*am, Buba Smith wrote:
On Jul 23, 9:58*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:









On Jul 23, 7:07*pm, Albert Thomas wrote:

On Jul 23, 5:29*pm, Andrzej Kobus wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:56*pm, Darryl Ramm wrote:

On Jul 23, 4:50*pm, Papa3 wrote:

On Jul 23, 7:06*pm, "
wrote:

On Jul 23, 3:32*pm, "Paul Remde" wrote:

I too, as an SSA member, ask you to please continue posting your reports on
the SSA web site. *You are doing a great job of reporting and we all enjoy
your articles very much.

If someone else wants to post additional articles on the SSA web site, they
are welcome to do that.

Paul Remde

"T8" wrote in message

...
On Jul 23, 5:20 pm, Frank Paynter wrote:

I have been asked by the contest management here at Logan to stop
posting my reports on the official SSA site, so henceforth these
reports will be available only on SoaringCafe.com. Apparently I was
using the ‘U’ (Unlandable) word a little too often for their taste. I
freely admit that a lot of the areas that from this flatlander’s
perspective looks unlandable may in fact be perfectly safe from the
point of view of a Logan regular, but hey – I’m not completely dumb
and it looked pretty scary to me! ;-).

As an SSA member, I invite you to continue posting on the SSA reports
site.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Me too!!

Me four! * That is seriously bad policy and a stupid move by
someone. * 5 busted gliders deserves to be called out!

P3

Me five. I enjoy many of the contest reports. But while there are
benefits of keeping things all together on the SSA site, if that
becomes a stupid hassle then SoaringCafe is a good home as well. I
would hope SSA management looks at this and actively discourages any
attempts to gag posts like this.

Darryl

Guess what, someone removed all Frank's posts from the SSA's contest
website. Is this a censorship? I can not believe this is happening.
Someone please wake me up from deep sleep and tell me this has not
happened!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, some of Frank's posts are still posted at the Regionals page.
Not sure for how long they will stay there though..... Yes, this is
blatant censorship and I can think of two reasons for it. Frank's
account will make in unlikely that future national might be held at
Logan because too many pilots may decide it's just too risky a venue
for their glider. Which leads to a second possibility. As a contest
manager or competition director who has selected tasks that have
resulted in the damage to 5 (is that confirmed? FIVE!?!) out of 54 or
9.3% of the sailplanes entered, I'd be a little worried about the
soaring insurance companies reading of repeated tasks over reportedly
unlandable terrain. You do have to get liability insurance to host one
of these contests after all...I'm just glad no one has been hurt in
this crapshoot.

First of all, let's put a number on the gliders damaged flying at
Logan this past week.

I count two that I would regard as damaged (needing calls to the
insurance rep), both landing mishaps - one on a rocky mountain meadow,
the other in tall barley. *If you count the plane that lost its tail
skid and the one that lost a wingtip skid (mine), you could stretch it
to four. *I've no idea where the "5" damaged gliders number comes
from. *Based on my experience of flying out west, 2 out of 60 is
pretty much par for a contest.

The terrain can be intimidating for folks not used to flying in the
mountains, and on my first flights here I am also treading warily
cross-country. *Climbing out from low on the mountains is common in
many parts of the world and if you're not comfortable "sticking your
wings in the trees" as one here put it, you're better off somewhere
else. *It's definitely not a site for beginners or wusses.

There have been more landouts than usual, but quite a few resulted
from unexpected weather rather than stiff tasks. * I flew Friday's
regional FAI task and did the east/west transition for the first time
and had no problems, so I've no idea why others found it tough.

I was initially concerned about crowding on the ridges, but I have
seen many worse sites around the world and have not felt at particular
risk here. *(I would like my Flarm though. *Please! *You know, the one
that was supposedly being delivered last May!)

I've no idea where the SAA censorship came from. *Considering that
blogs are personal accounts, I see nothing major to complain about. I
might describe things differently from my perspective, but that's how
it goes.

Mike

Mike ,
First , it was a pleasure getting to know you and hearing your WX
reports every Morning . Second , lets set the damaged ships aside for
a moment and look at the number of competitors ( In Sports Class ) who
finished tasks on certain days . Many who did finish and did well inoo
the scoring where complaining that , given the conditions , the tasks
where intimidating and they were having to take unnecessary risks . *I
don't know what the normal ratio of finishers is but 1 out of 3 or 4
seems awfully low . This was brought up at Thursdays Pilot Meeting and
the response was essentially " If I say its safe to search this
Beach ........ " . *The SSA should allow this to be addressed on the
Website . *Lets hope the conditions improve for the remaining
Nationals tasks and this probably will cease to be much of an issue .
Thanks for your service at the contest .
R4

oops , Thats " Surf this beach " , Sorry

On Jul 23, 11:58*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:

"Based on my experience of flying out west, 2 out of 60 is pretty much
par for a contest."


Mike, I'm sure you will agree with me that 2 accidents is 2 too many.

All, what are we doing in this sport to prevent this from happening
again? It really makes me sick to my stomach to see contestants
demolish their gliders only to have it hushed up by contest
management. Seeing people get hurt or killed in contests lowers the
participation rate. We need to hear about the accidents in order to
learn a lesson!! I personally know two pilots who quit flying in
contests when they watched a glider cartwheel end over end landing in
an unlandable field. Yet, the contest report for that day said
nothing regarding the accident and just showed a W, F for Withdrew
from contest and Flight log.


If someone says a task was called over 80 miles of unlandable terrain,
yet another pilot claims there's always a suitable field within 8
miles of the course line, then why aren't these suitable fields being
entered into the turnpoint database? Situational awareness would
greatly improve if you got low and could see the distance, direction
and altituded needed to find this suitable field.

Looking at the turnpoint database for Logan, it shows lots of mountain
peaks for turnpoints. Nobody needs glide navigation into mountain
peaks. Pilots need glide navigation into suitable fields. How about
using actual suitable landing areas for turnpoints? We're not taking
pictures of easily identifiable turnpoints with Kodak cameras
anymore!! Maybe our accident ratio of 2 out of 60, would be much much
lower if people had these suitable fields marked on their GPS.

I love this sport and hate to hear of accidents happening.

On 8/6/2011 10:41 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:58 pm, Mike the StrikeStringm...@msn. We're not taking
pictures of easily identifiable turnpoints with Kodak cameras
anymore!! Maybe our accident ratio of 2 out of 60, would be much much
lower if people had these suitable fields marked on their GPS.

I think it would be nightmare for contest management to provide a list
of "suitable fields" over which they have no control, that are not
controlled by any authority, and are privately owned.

Even setting aside the legal issues, what criteria should be used for a
suitable field? The range of ability and ships means some fields will
not be suitable for everyone. Who determines the field is still suitable
each day of the contest? A field can fine one day and full of cattle the
next, a fence is installed, sprinklers moved, hay bales moved in for
storage, and so on.

Pilots can and should be warned of local hazards, and they are already
made of aware of places like dry lakes that are known quantities that
won't change, but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
or even during the day.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Pilots can and should be warned of local hazards, and they are already
made of aware of places like dry lakes that are known quantities that
won't change,

So why not make the known quantities (dry lake) a turnpoint, and
delete the turnpoints that are mountain peaks!!!! :-)



On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
or even during the day.

If it's not a known quantity, then don't list it as a turnpoint!
Simple! Easy!


There is no debating that glide navigation into a known quantity is
better than having glide navigation into an unlandable point.

On 8/11/2011 9:24 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric wrote:


On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric wrote:
but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
or even during the day.

If it's not a known quantity, then don't list it as a turnpoint!
Simple! Easy!

My point was fields are not "known quantities", so listing them as
"landable" is a bad idea.

There is no debating that glide navigation into a known quantity is
better than having glide navigation into an unlandable point.


Turnpoints haven't been "turnpoints" for years but are "turn areas", and
where the pilot turns can be 10 miles from the turnpoint. In the olden
days when we did actually turn at turnpoints, airports were often used
as turnpoints because they were easy to identify by the pilot and the
person reading the film, not because they were landable. Some airports
used as turnpoints were, in fact, not landable by large wingspan gliders
(and even some smaller ones).

Even in those days, many turnpoints were NOT landable, but were easily
identifiable road intersections, dams, towers, and other objects (yes,
even mountain peaks).

Remember, it's a "turnpoint" and the pilot is not required to land
there, so there is no need to use a landable area. There is nothing
inherent about a landable area that makes it any easier to reach. I'd
rather the turnpoint was in an area of good soaring that on a landable area.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/6/2011 11:41 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:

All, what are we doing in this sport to prevent this from happening
again? It really makes me sick to my stomach to see contestants
demolish their gliders only to have it hushed up by contest
management.

"Indeed!" as to your question. As Tom Knauff has bluntly pointed out on this
group a number of times - and a point with which I generally agree ==IF==
the 'finger of blame' pointed at pilots choosing, as Tom has put it, not to
'upgrade their proficiency' ALSO includes their underlying attitudes (which
need to be examined by pilots, and, adjusted or acted upon as sober reflection
concludes) - the vast majority of sailplane accidents are not 'surprises'
thrown at pilots by the Fickle Finger of Fate, but weaker and weaker links of
chains that eventually break. To conclude pilots - skills and attitudes - are
not an active part of the chain is 'comfortingly delusional' ('comfortingly'
so until the 'inevitable' accident, that is).

And, "I agree completely," with the 'hushed up' sentiment, though I don't
limit my dissatisfaction to only contest management. Writing as a person who
(decades ago) had an accident that ended up in "Soaring" magazine (very
inaccurately, due in part to my youthful diffidence/reluctance to contribute
my own narrative of a still-painful-in-mind situation), I contributed that
time to the silence. Effectively, as a non-contributor, I 'hushed up' an
accident I know would have been of intense interest to a number of fellow SSA
members. Shame on me.

Using Logan as today's current example, Serious Kudos go to Andy Blackburn for
sharing sufficient of the circumstances of his, glider-breaking, off-field
groundloop on RAS, for any mildly savvy (even wannabe) XC pilot to sensibly
conclude how his decision(s) led to a busted glider.

For those who happened to miss his post, I took away that he'd left himself a
the off-field choice of landing in a tallish barley field. Definitely a
smooth, reasonably level surface, but also definitely one with 'known glider
busting' obstacles, i.e. 'the tallish crop.' FWIW, I concluded decades ago
that landing in ANY field that had a high probability of snagging a wingtip
with 'something' (e.g. barley, weeds, grass, etc.) was rolling the dice
insofar as being able to fly the same T-tailed, glass glider tomorrow. (Anyone
interested in learning more about *why* I concluded that, feel free to start
another thread...)

Silence is definitely not golden, when it comes to learning from others'
sailplane mistakes.

We need to hear about the accidents in order to
learn a lesson!! I personally know two pilots who quit flying in
contests when they watched a glider cartwheel end over end landing in
an unlandable field. Yet, the contest report for that day said
nothing regarding the accident and just showed a W, F for Withdrew
from contest and Flight log.

Not to belabor the point, but imagine yourself in the position of 'contest
management'. How and when would you go about 'learning the details' of such a
crunch? (And let's not even consider the U.S.-centric phobia of being sued...)
Whose responsibility is it...not only the creating of the crunch, but the
disseminating of first-hand information (always the best, if it's available)?
Using your example, if no first-hand information was 'reasonably obtainable,'
who was in the better position to begin disseminating second-hand information,
the two eyewitnesses or contest management? Sure the latter had a handy
'pulpit,' but in today's world, the former are far from bereft of their own
pulpits. The point I'm hoping to emphasize is that SOMEone needs to step up,
bite the bullet, and 'be brave' about trying to disseminate 'possibly
actionable data' about accidents to the interested folks in the soaring
community. We know the NTSB is neither interested, staffed, nor capable of
doing it, 'contest management' has some obvious obstacles, so I conclude it's
really up to the soaring community at large. That might just mean you or me,
depending on circumstances. (Arm twisting by 'you or me' of pilots who've
broken their gliders is permitted, of course...)

The GOOD news is that - IMHO - the vast majority of soaring accidents (80+%?)
are repetitive 'poor judgment based'. Obviously, that's not good for the
parties involved, but it's 'good' to the rest of us who are interested in NOT
making similar mistakes, if we're honest with ourselves about 'a likely chain
of events' that might have led up to 'the bad judgment.' For example, how many
readers are as ready to land their T-tailed glass glider in a field with
'tallish growth' now as before reading this post? Why? (Again, this might be a
topic worth batting about under another thread, because - I will argue - XC
pilots who ARE 'comfortable/OK-with' doing so are also significantly more
likely to one day break their own glider than those who are not. In any event,
it's a pilot's *choice* to use those sort of fields, not an inevitability.)

It's the relatively smaller percentage of non 'stupid-pilot trick' accidents
that remain of intense personal interest, simply because, with today's
knowledge, in those are the accident categories I consider myself most likely
to futurely participate. However, somewhere and somewhen along the line, I had
to *learn* this conclusion. I did it only by scouring "Soaring," aviation
magazines, and the NTSB reports (and, in online days, their database). Hence
the very real value of pilots sharing their mistakes...through whatever venue
available to them. I thank them all, alive or not.


If someone says a task was called over 80 miles of unlandable terrain,
yet another pilot claims there's always a suitable field within 8
miles of the course line, then why aren't these suitable fields being
entered into the turnpoint database? Situational awareness would
greatly improve if you got low and could see the distance, direction
and altituded needed to find this suitable field.

"What Eric Greenwell said." Whose responsibility is it to 'properly assess'
fields over which contest (really, any) sailplane pilots are flying? (Correct
answer: Joe Pilot.)

To conjure up an extreme example hoping to better illustrate 'where I'm coming
from' on this, imagine me as CD calling tasks over completely unlandable
terrain at some contest (whether unbroken forests, virgin Arizona desert,
whatever...). Sure, I'd be advertising myself as (choose what applies: an
idiot, a jerk, a power-mad autocrat, an ***hole, etc., etc. etc.), but: 1) I
can't *force* competing pilots to go out on course; 2) any pilot could
individually 'vote with his feet' and choose to not participate; 3) pilots
could band together and do the same/tar-and-feather me/demand their money back
from the organizers/etc.; 4) (here, be imaginative!). Years ago, I remember
seeing in "Soaring" magazine a statement attributed to CD Karl Striedieck to
the effect: I should be able to call a task anywhere in the (eastern, in this
case) contest area and expect you folks to be able to safely fly it,
regardless of weather. Reportedly, this was by way of cutting off at the knees
'pilot whining' at his task calling. True or not, and ignoring the 'fairness'
of a contest called with that philosophy in mind, I agreed than and now with
the reported philosophy.


Looking at the turnpoint database for Logan, it shows lots of mountain
peaks for turnpoints. Nobody needs glide navigation into mountain
peaks. Pilots need glide navigation into suitable fields. How about
using actual suitable landing areas for turnpoints? We're not taking
pictures of easily identifiable turnpoints with Kodak cameras
anymore!! Maybe our accident ratio of 2 out of 60, would be much much
lower if people had these suitable fields marked on their GPS.

I love this sport and hate to hear of accidents happening.

We're in 100% agreement on that last sentence!!!


Respectfully,
Bob - mindset matters! - W.