Rocky Mountain Racing Venues

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)

Indeed - I wonder how many CFIT accidents are caused by pilots used to
the turn radius of their ship at lower altitudes. If you have not flown
with visual reference to immovable objects it is easy to misjudge the
difference in handling. It feels the same - but you are consuming
somewhat more airspace. In a marginal situation it might be enough to
get you on the rocks.

On 2012/05/25 6:49 PM, Fox Two wrote:
On Friday, May 25, 2012 4:46:13 PM UTC+2, Bruno wrote:

I am going to sound biased since I live only 2 hours away from Logan
and fly there at least a few times per year. My main airport is Cedar
Valley just 25 miles south or Salt Lake City. There were a few very
loud detractors of Logan who were quite vocal with their complaints
last year. There were dozens of others who did not agree with their
statements and did speak up but were not as loud and passionate at
least when it comes to posting on the Internet. I personally can
witness that Logan was flown safe by over 90% of the crowd last year.
The remaining 10% decided to glide into more intimidating areas too
low breaking the cardinal rule not to glide out of distance from a
landable field. I was always within glide of a field the entire
contest. There were times I needed to stop and climb so I could
remain that way and watch a few pilots plow ahead lower than myself.
Wonder how they can then complain? My guess is most of the time they
scared themselves but actually still had a field they could have
gotten to if they looked around. I saw statements of flying over
unlandable terrain on days where tasks took them into areas that still
had fields - just not as many as they might have liked but there were
still plenty of landable fields out there. Logan is a great place,
with an amazing huge airport with lots of room for glider operations
but still with its own challenges (can sometimes require a higher tow
to get things going quicker) but it is a DAMN safe venue with amazing
scenery and soaring when the pilots do what they are supposed to and
don't go into wilderness areas too low. I am sure there were plenty
of times at Mifflin this year where pilots might have been pushing it
to stay within a safe glide of a field. Don't rule out Logan as a
fantastic soaring venue.

Stepping off the podium now.
Bruno - B4

First to Dieter:

I'm sure that the competition at Moriarity will be fun; I've actually already flown there. Most of my American soaring was flown in the desert southwest, so I'm quite familiar with the incredible soaring conditions that one can enjoy there! But, soaring thousands of feet ABOVE the mountains isn't the same as soaring THROUGH the mountains! It's a totally different kind of flying, altogether.

On to Bruno:

I agree with you completely, and I believe that you help make my point: Flying at a mountain site can be done safely, but one can't just jump in and expect to be safe. Proper guidance and experience is required, there are just too many unknown unknowns!

One must intimately know the land-out fields that are in the few and far between wilderness areas, and one must be intimately familiar with landing-out at high density altitudes. Maneuvering near the mountainsides and well below the mountain peaks requires an entirely different set of soaring skills, and that must be experienced first-hand.

I would love to see more mountain sites such as Logan succeed as racing venues in the USA. The mountains offer an entirely new level of challenges to the soaring pilot; that's perhaps why so many Europeans flock to the Alps! That's why I moved here!

Chris Fleming

--
Bruce Greeff
T59D #1771

Stepping off the podium now.
Bruno - B4
Bruno,
I might be one of the people you are talking about because I did make
a negative post about the contest. Let me apologize if anyone took
exception to my post. During the contest I got to listen in on a
couple of bitchfests from a large group of competitors, Including some
who were doing quite well on the scoresheet. Then there was grumblings
from a couple of the Tow Pilots (One of whom I knew personally). As an
added bonus I was in earshot of a, lets say spirited discussion among
some of the contest management. As a low time glider pilot (As you
know only about 500 hours) I should have approached this from a
standpoint of determining how much of this was normal at a contest.
Instead, I kinda jumped on the bandwagon. Again, I should have been
more constructive.
So, to put all that behind us, I think Logan is a great mountain site
and is safer than some of the mountain sites Ive flown. As you know,
Between learning to fly gliders in Durango and Telluride and then
flying the coastal mountains of California and now Utah, I have never
flown a sailplane in flatlands. With out proper training flatlands can
be intimidating

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