700 agl / 1 mile finish

On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:11:03 PM UTC-4, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:

Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.







Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.







I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.







Evan Ludeman / T8





Help. I need a realistic solution for the times and places where for some good reason the race must end somewhere other than the airport. This situation really does arise.



It seems to me that a graduated penalty all the way to the ground is just another way of saying "the race always ends at the airport."



For example, at Minden you must not have gliders arriving at the airport below pattern altitude as part of a normal task completion.



So ideas please.



John Godfrey (QT)

RC Chair

Make Minden (and similar) the exception. If it takes 1000 agl and 2 miles to be safe and accommodating at Minden, do it. I believe that's been possible under existing rules for several years. It's the new 700 agl guidance applied to benign venues that's coughing up hairballs in combination with the -200' "death penalty" (not my name, but that's what guys are calling it)..

Personally I advocate: 500 / 1 mile guidance (with provision for changes to suit special cases like Minden) and a *modest* penalty for being low, say 10 pts per 100'. This makes it absolutely advantageous to follow the rules, doesn't turf a pilot out of the running for a distance miscalculation as happened last week (going for the show finish a little early, 200 low, but fast). If an absolute floor is required at a place like Minden, so be it..

Yes, I know you can hit 500 / 1 mile at 60 kts in an 18m ship and not make the airport at ______ and I'm sorry someone decided to try that. That's why I aim for 100' high, level and fast a half mile out. No penalties, no fuss, eyes out and alert, two or three split second checks to make certain I'm not inadvertently descending (and I'd really rather not be bothered with that, to tell the truth).

Sometimes I think we should make the finish gate bottom 500 feet /under/ ground. Airmanship, guys. Airmanship.

Evan Ludeman / T8

I was the second guy to get no speed points for an otherwise good finish and great flight. After misunderstanding the distance on my PDA, I pushed the stick forward thinking I had a good finish. It turns out when I crossed the real finish point I was 250 feet too low at 120 knots. The "landout" penalty amounted to 250+ points, expensive blunder. The current rule doesn't consider total energy.

A respected pilot at the contest explained he watches his PDA to see the finish arc is crossed. Seems another unintended consequence of this rule is a high demand of "head in the cockpit" at a critical point in the flight? That's my takeaway from this blunder.

Sean Franke
Flying LS3a HF

Personally I advocate: 500 / 1 mile guidance (with provision for changes to suit special cases like Minden) and a *modest* penalty for being low, say 10 pts per 100'....

Yes, I know you can hit 500 / 1 mile at 60 kts in an 18m ship and not make the airport at ______ and I'm sorry someone decided to try that.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan, and everyone else. This rule is not about the finish. Wrap your head around that slowly. This rule has nothing to do with making sure you can make it to the airport after crossing the finish cylinder.

The rule is aimed at the guy 10 miles out on MacCready 0 glide plus 50 feet.. With your proposal -- 500', 10 points per 100' low -- that pilot looks at his options: pop over the fence, 50 point penalty. Land out he lose 400 points. The rules are giving the pilot a very strong incentive to try it. Low final glides, and heroic pop over the fence stories were once part of gliding lore. As was picking up pieces from the fence and the last few fields.

Once again, "guidance" is not "rule." You cannot expect the RC sitting in its glorious splendor to decide the right finish altitude for every contest, every airport, and every weather condition, because the CD and pilots who are there won't be able to think of it! That's what we have CDs and advisers for.

The rule sets forth a structure. Pilots, CDs, and advisers can make the finish high or low as needed.

A better idea for Mifflin (and Truckee) might be a remote finish on the ridge top.

John Cochrane

John, a remote finish at high altitude as suggested might be the best option for all US finishes.

The current rule / guidance allows for a potentially unsafe situation. In Mifflin at one mile out (turns out to be the airport edge)at 650 feet you can make a safe approach and landing. You then get a significant penalty. Making a few turns at 650 feet, 1.5 miles out to gain 100 feet has a small time penalty. In the mean time guys a moderate speed are coming through at 750 feet agl to finish. WOW, the safe move of coming in to land has a higher penalty than low thermalling just outside the finish with other gliders trying to get through.

Sean Franke

On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:07:53 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Personally I advocate: 500 / 1 mile guidance (with provision for changes to suit special cases like Minden) and a *modest* penalty for being low, say 10 pts per 100'.... Yes, I know you can hit 500 / 1 mile at 60 kts in an 18m ship and not make the airport at ______ and I'm sorry someone decided to try that. Evan Ludeman / T8 Evan, and everyone else. This rule is not about the finish. Wrap your head around that slowly. This rule has nothing to do with making sure you can make it to the airport after crossing the finish cylinder. The rule is aimed at the guy 10 miles out on MacCready 0 glide plus 50 feet. With your proposal -- 500', 10 points per 100' low -- that pilot looks at his options: pop over the fence, 50 point penalty. Land out he lose 400 points. The rules are giving the pilot a very strong incentive to try it. Low final glides, and heroic pop over the fence stories were once part of gliding lore. As was picking up pieces from the fence and the last few fields. Once again, "guidance" is not "rule." You cannot expect the RC sitting in its glorious splendor to decide the right finish altitude for every contest, every airport, and every weather condition, because the CD and pilots who are there won't be able to think of it! That's what we have CDs and advisers for. The rule sets forth a structure. Pilots, CDs, and advisers can make the finish high or low as needed. A better idea for Mifflin (and Truckee) might be a remote finish on the ridge top. John Cochrane

as long as the remote finish point is within 2 miles of the airport, right? Or is there somewhere else in the rules that I'm not seeing that allows the CD to set a remote finish anywhere they choose?

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:07:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:

The rule is aimed at the guy 10 miles out on MacCready 0 glide plus 50 feet. With your proposal -- 500', 10 points per 100' low -- that pilot looks at his options: pop over the fence, 50 point penalty. Land out he lose 400 points. The rules are giving the pilot a very strong incentive to try it.. Low final glides, and heroic pop over the fence stories were once part of gliding lore. As was picking up pieces from the fence and the last few fields.

Believe it or not, I get the motivation. My point is that you've created a rather blunt instrument to deal with it and the unintended consequences are not completely trivial.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan,

Are you thinking perhaps a proportional penalty (say 1 pt per foot) but no loss if speed points would be better? I could support that. Or are you saying Mifflin should have had no minimum height this day? 300 ft? 100? 50? Avoid the cars and squirrels? :-), just kidding. Seriously what would have been the right number or procedure for that day at Mifflin?

The US finish rule, if its going to be effective, needs to have at least a few sharp teeth, but perhaps a simple linear penalty without losing speed points would be less harsh for pilots who are unable to meet their finish height for "innocent" reasons. I think this is what you are saying.

Again, I can agree that the current penalty being very significant. But if we have this rule and pilots are finishing at minimum energy to avoid the penalty (happens all the time), it probably should be even higher and not lower. As you mentioned, you were min energy and 500 ft. Thats no fun and risky for sure. In that case, that low, it is probably safer to have no finish penalty and simply allow finishing pilots to plan a pattern with energy as part of the finish final glide. No worry about min energy to a finish height and then decide what to do based on who is around you at that moment. Also that pilot (finishing at 502 and 50 knots) is laser focused on his/her altimeter at the absolute worst possible moment while near stall (other than starting of course in a big high energy gaggle). They have also probably been spending alot of time heads down in the cockpit in the tense minutes leading up to the finish!

How many pilots did not receive a finish penalty on this day? HF doesn't count as he made a computer boo boo. Did most pilots make it?

I guess my concern is that all pilots have the same rule to manage no matter what it is. The rule simply builds in a safety buffer on a worst case scenario. The question is this: is that safety buffer high enough in the event of this low energy situation to be safer? Nothing in the US rule rewards a pilot for making the safe decision and maintaining their precious energy close to the ground, at say 300 ft, trying to avoid the landout limit in a 500 agl finish minimum task. Only the hammer is applied. The result will be pilots doing what you did.

Also, I'm not sure bad luck is to blame if most pilots met the minimum. If some or most met the finish height, then it was a finish strategy problem perhaps for those who missed. But if everyone made it in at 50 knots and 502 feet it was actually far more dangerous for the contest. That is an excellent point if its what your saying. Ill look at the files I guess.

I would say a higher minimum which factors in a stall/spin at finish or no penalty at all and simply fall back on the FAR s, and basic rules of aviation safety which are clearly and firmly in place for all if us and supersede US or FAI rules.

I don't think there is a right answer. I personally think we need a bigger buffer (1000') or no finish height per FAI.

Sean

The finish altitude was 500 agl at the recently completed 18 meter nationals in Bermuda High until someone asked (safety box) for 700 agl and a 200 ft wider safety margin. There was some friendly debate at the pilots meeting ;-). I supported the change to 700 as well as 5-7 other pilots. 2-3 were against it, firmly. The CD decided to go with the 700 ft agl suggestion and it was raised from that point forward in the contest. The problem that led to this debate was that certain approaches to Bermuda High had few landing options (mainly forest with small obstacle filled options) for the last 5-10 miles. We also experienced regular amd significant sink at lower altitudes approaching the airport on certain days. One pilot went from 300 above MC 3.0 at 10 miles and was sunk to 180 below 1-2 miles out. He barely made the airport as it was his best option. Several competitors had landed within a few miles of the airport on other days in the same situation. I was often just making at 500 agl and 1 mile from 15-20 miles out and MC 3.5 with a 500-700 ft safety margin. Yes, my polar is accurate.

When the floor was raised to 700 there seemed to be much less issues in general and I felt safer in this particular location.

The issues in Mifflin appear to me to be more a problem with a contest flying area that has much more complication and risks. I don't really like contest at these types of locations. I prefer thermal contests in flat terrain and ample farmland. I like flying in the complex areas, but not racing (or AATing, :-))

I have no solution to the concerns other than site selection. I think Mifflin in marginal weather is marginal.

In the end I agree with Tom, it's PIC responsibility. We can only set a safety margin and hope its enough to keep pilots who push it (or have no other choice like Evan did) to stay safe.

For the Mifflin situation, there is no safe answer. It's a rodeo and the bull has sharp horns when condition are as described.

Best,

Sean
F2

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:25:40 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:

For the Mifflin situation, there is no safe answer. It's a rodeo and the bull has sharp horns when condition are as described.

Good gracious no! There must be 300 acres of landable terrain within a mile of the MiffCo airport (i.e. most of it) and several thousand within 5. A busted glide here results in a safe landout unless someone gets very thick headed and puts the decision off to 200 agl or some such.

The 500' / 1 mile finish at MiffCo is about as completely benign as it is possible to achieve. 700 is complete overkill and has awkward complications as previously noted.

-Evan Ludeman / T8

Ok. I stand corrected. Never flown there, but stayed there one night in a motorhome. Beautiful place.