Rocky Mountain Racing Venues

At the very least, racing in the mountains appears to be a very sensitive issue in the USA. I believe that the Europeans have come to terms with many of the concerns, and are able to offer racing at mountain venues safely that appeal to ‘flat-landers’ and ‘mountain-lovers’ alike:

• Tasks are generally called to the more benign terrain with easy-to-find land-out sites,

• “Tricky” areas that are well-known only to the local pilots are strictly avoided for fairness,

• When strong conditions exist, Turn Area Tasks are called to allow pilots of all mountain-experience levels to profit (flat-landers stay close to the big, open valleys while the mountain-comfortable pilots fly deeper into the high terrain), more specifically:

• Assigned Tasks NEVER force pilots into high terrain while Turn Area Tasks offers the OPTION of going into high terrain,

• And most importantly, mountain training is readily available in the task area.

Contests in Europe are carefully prepared to find the best all-round pilot, and not the best mountain-specialized pilot. The mountain contests here are safe, fair and fun.

I believe that if mountain contests in the States followed the European example, some of the great Rocky Mountain Soaring Venues would become more popular among the American pilot group as a whole. Just my 2¢…

Chris Fleming
F2

On May 24, 6:59*am, Fox Two wrote:
Before packing up my Discus2 and moving to the French Alps, I only had the opportunity to race a couple of times in the USA, and never at a Rocky Mountain Racing Venue. *If one defined a “Rocky Mountain Racing Venue (RMRV)” as one where the pilots routinely found themselves at or below the mountains’ tops, which venues would make the list?

Even if one were to take a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a RMRV, the FAI classes have only visited them rarely at the national competition level over the past 10 years. *Is it a question of pilots not wanting to travel to those venues, or is it a matter of safety?

Logan would appear to easily meet the definition of a RMRV, but I see that the reviews of the debut national competition held there last year were controversial. *Now that the dust on the critiques has settled, were most of the concerns toward the competition’s logistics, or toward the venue itself?

Chris Fleming
F2

There is a nice little race coming up at Moriarity New Mexico in early
June. You may be able to enter as a guest or better. Going there you
may learn a lot concerning your questions. For instance during the
whole race there, you may never fly ridges, would do much better in
thermals going right up the slope and rise way above the peaks where
you would stay for the task.
flying at altitudes between 14000 and 18000 ft which makes for fast
ground speeds. Real Estate, airports that are tight and
busy, the lack of clubs, tow planes etc are other reasons. Possibly
the Rockies have not been discovered yet? Next time
you come, bring some buddies and self launchers to have a great
different experience

Dieter Bibbig
Gliders Of Aspen

Chris,

I think the biggest issue is that 75% of the contest pilots are flat-landers. Personally, I won't go to a race in the mountains, I don't have the skills or knowledge. Without those tools in your kit, mountain flying is dangerous.

On May 24, 6:59*am, Fox Two wrote:
Before packing up my Discus2 and moving to the French Alps, I only had the opportunity to race a couple of times in the USA, and never at a Rocky Mountain Racing Venue. *If one defined a “Rocky Mountain Racing Venue (RMRV)” as one where the pilots routinely found themselves at or below the mountains’ tops, which venues would make the list?

Even if one were to take a liberal interpretation of what constitutes a RMRV, the FAI classes have only visited them rarely at the national competition level over the past 10 years. *Is it a question of pilots not wanting to travel to those venues, or is it a matter of safety?

Logan would appear to easily meet the definition of a RMRV, but I see that the reviews of the debut national competition held there last year were controversial. *Now that the dust on the critiques has settled, were most of the concerns toward the competition’s logistics, or toward the venue itself?

Chris Fleming
F2

Chris,

Sites that I would consider true mountain flying in the USA include
Logan, Ely and some of the Cascade sites in Washington. Logan is
currently the one that is most developed and established for racing.
Contest have been held here for three years from 2009 to 2011.

I have flown from Logan for twelve years so have the most history of
exploring the possibilities. About 90% of the pilots that fly here
love it and look forward to coming back. We have a group from Idaho
that has come back each year for nearly 10 years. The other 10% are
uncomfortable with the mountains and the skills required to fly here.
Some pilots just don't like to be near terrain and decide mountain
flying is not for them. The other do not have the skills to fly near
mountains and it is too frustrating for them to fly here. They end up
relighting many times and landing out often because they lack the
basic flying skills. We see this often when pilots think they are
flying a 45 degree bank when in reality they are circling at about 20
to 25 degrees. I tried to point this out at Logan in 2011 but many do
not understand how to judge their own bank angle. I found it
interesting that I was watching the "Fine week of soaring" video and
George Moffat was telling the pilots at Mifflin the same thing. Some
things never change.

You have to put 2011 at Logan in context that it was the third most
snowfall year in history and one of the coolest Springs and Summers in
history. This is not unusual in terms of nationals. The Pez D.
Spencer cartoon titled "Doon" (http://www.soaravenal.com/) plays on
the theme that if you bring a nationals to a site it will bring bad
weather. Even with the unusual weather we flew nine contest days. We
had land-outs but no different than Mifflin this year. Of twenty-
seven possible contest days we have flown twenty-six even with a weak
year in 2011. We had several accidents in 2011 but none were directly
a result of tasks and can only be attributed to pilot decisions (one
to continue to fly into rising terrain past many good fields and the
other to choosing a field with higher crops over cut fields nearby).

I have flown most of the major contest sites in the US and Logan is no
more difficult or has no less unlandable terrain that most of the
others. We have held extensive briefings during the regionals in 2009
and 2010 and held a three day advanced racing camp before the practice
days at the nationals in 2011 as well as an area briefing prior to the
contest in 2011. I have flown with many visiting pilots and given
tours of the area to anyone who has been willing to fly at Logan
before or after contest.

Logan is blessed with the most benign landing areas of any mountain
site I have ever seen. Contrary to some reports the tasks were not
over unlanadable terrain. In fact the task that was reported to be
"over 80 miles of unlandable terrain" actually included two airports
that the writer flew almost directly over and more than 200 square
miles of landable fields. Most of the valleys in the task area are
broad flat valleys with alfalfa so unlike the Alps there is no near
for a detailed list of fields, just fly out to almost any valley.
Areas that have questionable fields were covered in detail in the
pilots briefings at each contest, these are by a large percentage a
minority of the tasking area.

If you are comfortable in the mountains then Logan is very enjoyable.
If you want to learn more about mountain flying Logan is a great site
to learn how even during a contest if you are willing to listen and
ask questions and most importantly if you have the self-critical
ability to assess your own skills rather than to blame others or the
site. The joke at Mifflin this year was "they though Logan was hard
and technical last year, you should try Mifflin this year". Any site
under less than average conditions can be tough, each pilot must make
decisions for the weather and location that keep them safe. I have
been over the Hill Country of Uvalde or out to the west of Hobbs when
it is weak and that is no fun either.

Finally anyone who says they don't go to a site because they don't
have the skills yet is missing an opportunity. I always figure that I
need one contest at any site before I can really race there. I just
finished a 4000 miles round trip to fly at Mifflin. The first time at
a site is always hard and it is very difficult to train at a site and
still get a true racing perspective because you are not forced to make
the same decision and fly on the weak days you will during a contest.
The weather at Mifflin was very weak this year but it made me use all
my skills and gave me a chance to do a lot of "what if" scenarios that
help you fly faster at a site in the future. On day four when I had
my third low save of the day and the lowest at about 500 feet agl it
was clear we were all being pushed pretty hard. I watched LX, BB and
my wingman on the day KS land in fields below me. The important thing
at any site is to fly safe at your skill level and listen and learn as
mush as possible.

Tim (TT)