Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:35:15 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:48:44 AM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:

2000 ft is a little high ;-), but (based on the discussion within this thread) we definitely need to consider moving MFH and any hard deck up to just above a mutually agreed "safe circling altitude." This minimum acceptable safe circling altitude is the key. I think we all agree that any finish height rule is absolutely going to cause a certain subset of pilots to instinctively try and save their points just outside the distance barrier and just below the penalty altitude. 1200 feet AGL is probably the right MFH (with graduated penalties down to 1000 AGL) as a stall spin is PROBABLY recoverable from 800 - 900 feet in most gliders. This is where the gliders "caught" by this rule will be "doing their dance!" At 18 meter nationals last summer (due to the nature of the finishes and the lack of acceptable landing options surrounding the airfield) the MFH was moved up mid contest. There was luke warm debate although the CD managed the discussion very eloquently. Ultimately, a vote was taken and the result was in favor of raising the MFH.. I think it was moved from 700 to 800 AGL. It might have been higher. I do not remember. 1200 ft, is only 400 above 18m Nationals last summer. Clearly, it offers a greater cushion should the unthinkable happen and someone spins... Of course, the other alternative is simply to remove this rule altogether and just allow the pilots to make their own choices. It is a quite a pickle... Personally, I am open to both options. What I don't really like is the current rule which results in gliders circling below 700 ft and in some cases below 500 just prior to arrival at the finish location. Sean F2 On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:18:32 AM UTC-5, Andrew Brayer wrote: Could we please just raise the finish height to 2000 feet and get it over with? i'll just do contest style finishes when i'm not at contests. having made my sarcastic remark, I do appreciate the efforts to make this sport safer. the problem is you cannot prevent accidents universally, this is aviation and racing combined. Instead we need to encourage pilots to make safe decisions rather than trying to protect everyone by implementing rules. my two cents.



I've flown a few contests, something more than 30, since the finish cylinder, in various forms, has been in place. I have never seen anyone trying to circle up to finish height. Obviously there may be a few cases where this happens. My view is that it makes little sense to try to solve issues that occur quite rarely.

Other considerations should include the likely actions after finishing. When one finishes at about 700 feet, the height is about right to enter the pattern and we can expect most pilots to do so pretty mich immediately. We then know where to expect the other traffic to be and recovery is usually orderly.

Raise the height by several hundred feet and now everyone will need to work out a path to get down to pattern height. This introduces another factor we all have to cope with as different pilots do their own way of letting down and entering the pattern.

With the commonly used 700 foot finish, I almost always position myself when finishing so I can directly enter the pattern and land. I note that most others do the same thing. I think it works pretty well.

Also worth noting is that tactically it almost never makes sense to try to circle up to try to reduce the penalty for finishing a bit below the finish height. At about 5 pts/ minute in Nationals(8/minute in regioals),the time used pretty quickly offsets the 40 points lost for a 200 foot low arrival.

UH

I am with UH on this(very rarely he will add!). But the 2 rules(below)cover almost all these discussed issues.(same for Regionals & Nationals).

10.9.1.4 Pilots must pay particular attention to safety during the process of finishing, landing, and rolling to a stop. A pilot whose
finish, pattern, landing, or rollout is deemed unsafe by the CD is subject to a penalty for unsafe operation (Rule 12.2.5.1).

10.9.2.2.1 ‡ Each task shall include a Minimum Finish Height (MFH), set by the CD at least high enough that pilots who obtain
a valid finish can return to the home airfield for a normal pattern and landing.

#711

In response to 9B:
The original post that started this discussion provided some data indicating that the current rule is not working as well as hoped in certain situations, and made some suggestions that might improve it.

As to the hard deck idea, I do not understand how that will affect a pilot who is faced with a deteriorating final glide that places him near the land-out penalty altitude just outside the finish circle. He will have been above any proposed hard deck all the way. A pilot who is watching the final glide knows early on that he might not make the MFH and is looking for lift all the way. The crunch comes in the last mile or so when he has not found it and is now looking to avoid a big penalty, as described (with concrete examples) in the original post.

The original post suggested increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’, thereby reducing the per foot penalty and providing more incentive to continue to a safe landing. In light of the excellent explanation from 9B about the RC’s deliberations leading to the current rule, I would appreciate his opinion as to how increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’ (with a commensurate increase in the MFH) would effect the pilot’s decision in the case of a degrading final glide where the pilot can still make the field safety but is facing a land-out finish penalty. It would seem to me that decreasing the penalty for a low (but safely above the bottom of the PZ) entry would increase the motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than stopping to thermal at an unsafe altitude. Imagine a pilot facing a small penalty for a busted glide vs the same pilot facing a huge penalty; which has the stronger motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than attempting a 'hail Mary' play?

I still suggest that we increase the width of the penalty zone as above for the 2014 season. This would be a trivial change to implement, and has the virtue that its effects can be easily measured and compared to prior-year data.

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:37:24 AM UTC-8, Bravo Zulu wrote:

John - Interlinear comments. My personal views - not in any official capacity.

In response to 9B:

The original post that started this discussion provided some data indicating that the current rule is not working as well as hoped in certain situations, and made some suggestions that might improve it.

As to the hard deck idea, I do not understand how that will affect a pilot who is faced with a deteriorating final glide that places him near the land-out penalty altitude just outside the finish circle. He will have been above any proposed hard deck all the way. A pilot who is watching the final glide knows early on that he might not make the MFH and is looking for lift all the way. The crunch comes in the last mile or so when he has not found it and is now looking to avoid a big penalty, as described (with concrete examples) in the original post.


The finish is a new use of the hard deck concept and makes a slightly different set of tradeoffs from the current rule. I'll try to articulate some preliminary thoughts on it, but it probably bears some detailed analysis.

First - in contrast to the current rule a hard deck would define the bottom of the finish cylinder in reference to the ground instead of 200' below MFH. Below the bottom of the cylinder means you didn't finish the task and you get distance points. For a 1000' MFH and a 500' hard deck this means the graduated "penalty zone" would be 500' instead of 200'. Points per foot of penalty TBD - choices are either to make it linear to 400 points (=landout) or something more like the current gradual penalty for 200, depending on whether having the penalty discontinuous at the bottom of the cylinder creates an incentive for risky behavior. I believe the second feature of the hard deck - a larger radius than the finish cylinder - decreases potential adverse incentives resulting from a discontinuous penalty at the bottom of the cylinder. More on that later.

Second - the hard deck as described here would extend out presumably 4-5 miles at an altitude below which a safe approach to an orderly landing starting at finish cylinder radius is not possible - This is consistent with the requirements of 10.9.4.1. In my thinking this hard deck height has been 400' to cover a variety of airport and finish cylinder configurations. Here it's been discussed at 500'. If finish cylinders were always 1 mile centered on an airport maybe you could MAYBE imagine 300' but I don't know who out there would make a serious argument that they could make a finish, fly to some sort of abbreviated pattern IP and make an orderly landing from 300' AGL..

Aside: Remember that GP-style starts will be allowed this year so you also have to think about being able to do this with a class of gliders finishing within a smaller time window than before. If we could be certain that every airport had a 1000' wide runway this would be less of a problem, but congestion is an issue at many sites. Somebody has to think about all this stuff...

I think the way a 4 mile (from the finish cylinder edge) hard deck might help is that it makes it a lot less likely that someone is going to come at a steep penalty zone all at once from the side. The so-called "penalty cliff" that started this thread has effectively been moved out to a point where most pilots will overfly the edge by 1000-1500', depending on MFH. If you were actually at 400', 4 miles out you would not be on final glide, you'd be on task (barely) and you be doing what pilots do when they are at 400' AGL on task, picking a field and (maybe) hoping for a climb.

So I think it's pretty clear that anyone coming at the hard deck would be coming at it from above, probably at best L/D because their glide computer has been telling them for some time that they are going to be WELL below MFH at the finish so they are stretching the glide. Once they are over the hard deck but not on a glidepath to get to the bottom of the finish cylinder, the correct and natural thing to do is head for the finish at best L/D and hope for lift. There's no energy to do a zoomie at the edge of the finish cylinder because you are trying to glide to it over a flat hard deck at best L/D. Pulling up to hit the bottom of the cylinder also means you already went below the hard deck and your day is done so that would be dumb. Would someone go halfway into the hard deck and then turn around so they could look for lift at below 400' outside of 4 miles? That would be stupid too as you probably close off more options than you open up by heading away from the finish. Would you bleed off airspeed trying to get a little more glide to reach the finish - maybe, but it would be counter-productive to go to the back side of the polar. So, maybe people would do stupid random stuff, but not for any rational reason that I can find.


The original post suggested increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’, thereby reducing the per foot penalty and providing more incentive to continue to a safe landing. In light of the excellent explanation from 9B about the RC’s deliberations leading to the current rule, I would appreciate his opinion as to how increasing the penalty zone from 200’ to 500’ (with a commensurate increase in the MFH) would effect the pilot’s decision in the case of a degrading final glide where the pilot can still make the field safety but is facing a land-out finish penalty. It would seem to me that decreasing the penalty for a low (but safely above the bottom of the PZ) entry would increase the motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than stopping to thermal at an unsafe altitude. Imagine a pilot facing a small penalty for a busted glide vs the same pilot facing a huge penalty; which has the stronger motivation to continue to a safe landing rather than attempting a 'hail Mary' play?

The good thing about the hard deck idea is it takes the edge off the bottom of the finish cylinder by making it impossible to climb up or zoom up to a finish in order to avoid the landout penalty. That's good to the extent you believe the steeper the penalty the more unpredictable the behavior to avoid it. The other think it does is pin the hard deck/landout height to the ground rather than the top of the finish cylinder. This means that the higher you make MFH the more buffer you have between MFH and the hard deck. Without the zoomie/low thermalling potential at the bottom of the cylinder you can be more comfortable with a gradual penalty from MFH to the bottom of the finish cylinder. (BTW I agree with UH this is probably a rare event, but something you'd prefer not to encourage).

The fly in the ointment is that some sites really like the 700' or 500' finish (I think for ridge missions), so you need to be careful about setting MFH too low, but with a 400' hard deck a 700' MFH has 300' of gradual penalty zone and a 1000' MFH has 600' of gradual penalty zone. A 500' MFH (drum roll for the math) has only 100' of gradual penalty, but I only hear a few voices who think that's a preferred target height for finishing a fleet of gliders and you still have 100' of buffer. Again with GP-style racing an option, we should be a little careful about how much congestion we can handle.


I still suggest that we increase the width of the penalty zone as above for the 2014 season. This would be a trivial change to implement, and has the virtue that its effects can be easily measured and compared to prior-year data.

Actually I think there is scoring software programming for some of this and we are past the comment deadline for 2014 rules so this may have to go on the agenda for 2015 if there is broad support to consider it. This thread was initially promising, but I have also heard some voices against it so it remains to be seen what will happen. The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.

9B

"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.

9B"

Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.

TT




" The current rules for finish cylinders specify t
hat for the first 200 feet
below the minimum finish
height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of
20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet
below MFH, the pilot is
scored as if he landed out at the home ai
rport. The intent is to make it
transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont
inuing a marginal final glide.
However, it moves the end of the race for speed
points from landing at the airport to crossing a
point at MFH-200'.
Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish
cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):

A:
The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below
the finish height should be the same as the
penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.

B:
The penalty for crossing the finish
cylinder below the finish height
should be more severe than for
a high start, since safety as well
as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.

C:
Scoring for crossing the finish
cylinder below the fini
sh height should be the same as coming up
short on a line finish - if you come up short
you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for
instrument error)"

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:08:32 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.



9B"



Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.



TT









" The current rules for finish cylinders specify t

hat for the first 200 feet

below the minimum finish

height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of

20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet

below MFH, the pilot is

scored as if he landed out at the home ai

rport. The intent is to make it

transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont

inuing a marginal final glide.

However, it moves the end of the race for speed

points from landing at the airport to crossing a

point at MFH-200'.

Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish

cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):



A:

The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below

the finish height should be the same as the

penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.



B:

The penalty for crossing the finish

cylinder below the finish height

should be more severe than for

a high start, since safety as well

as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.



C:

Scoring for crossing the finish

cylinder below the fini

sh height should be the same as coming up

short on a line finish - if you come up short

you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for

instrument error)"


Hey Tim,

A few pilots do review the survey before it goes out. I'm sure there is room for improvement. I also thought the results were pretty clear. No, there was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues - it was intended to survey views on paths forward and overall objectives rather than a vote on a specific penalty structure which had plenty of detailed feedback provided already. The very specific structure of a rule is not practical to survey for in multiple-choice format. Verbatims help as do focus-group format discussions.

9B

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:26:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:08:32 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.







9B"







Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.







TT



















" The current rules for finish cylinders specify t



hat for the first 200 feet



below the minimum finish



height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of



20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet



below MFH, the pilot is



scored as if he landed out at the home ai



rport. The intent is to make it



transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont



inuing a marginal final glide.



However, it moves the end of the race for speed



points from landing at the airport to crossing a



point at MFH-200'.



Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish



cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):







A:



The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below



the finish height should be the same as the



penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.







B:



The penalty for crossing the finish



cylinder below the finish height



should be more severe than for



a high start, since safety as well



as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.







C:



Scoring for crossing the finish



cylinder below the fini



sh height should be the same as coming up



short on a line finish - if you come up short



you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for



instrument error)"





Hey Tim,



A few pilots do review the survey before it goes out. I'm sure there is room for improvement. I also thought the results were pretty clear. No, there was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues - it was intended to survey views on paths forward and overall objectives rather than a vote on a specific penalty structure which had plenty of detailed feedback provided already. The very specific structure of a rule is not practical to survey for in multiple-choice format. Verbatims help as do focus-group format discussions.



9B

After reviewing the data the result's were very clear.

73% (168 out of 231) of the pilots voted that they wanted the points to go all the way to the ground. That is nearly 3/4 of the pilots said they DID NOT want a hard deck or any type of land out penalty imposed on those that crossed the finish line.

Rules committee please explain why we did not immediately reverse the land out rule on finishes when you saw these results? How much clearer do you need the data to be to react and rectify a rule that was not liked by 3 out of 4 pilots?

Tim Taylor

Mmmm....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOL-oH7oC8c

On 01/22/2014 6:21 PM, wrote:
Mmmm....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOL-oH7oC8c


Thanks Sean, very constructive, hope you're enjoying the show....

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 6:46:02 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.



-----------------------------------------------------------

Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?



If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.



To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.



Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.



However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.



If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.



Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.



Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.



Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.



So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.



Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”



So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):



• Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.



• Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).



• Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?



Let the flame wars begin! ;-)



Ok, we should all agree, its best for the rules, if possible, to remain constant. A rolling finish is allowed with a "gate". With a rolling finish, the entrant still gets speed points. The cylinder does not allow a rolling finish, a penalty is applied only down so far below MFH, then a landout occurs. You can still land at the home airport, but your not rewarded for your flight with speed points.

10.9.3 Finish Gate
10.9.3.1 A task shall include a Finish Point which is the center of the Finish Gate, and a finish direction which is the true ground
track of a sailplane crossing perpendicular to the finish gate.

10.9.3.2 The Finish Gate is a vertical plane of unlimited height approximately 3300 feet wide with its bottom at 50 feet AGL. At
least one end of the Finish Gate will be clearly marked on the ground. Pilots electing to fly through the Finish Gate must pass
through it only in the specified direction with sufficient energy to fly a full or partial pattern to a safe landing on the airfield.
10.9.4 Rolling finish
10.9.4.1 When a Finish Gate is in use, the CD shall designate one or more rolling finish areas on the home airfield.
10.9.4.2 Communications
10.9.4.2.1 When four miles from a rolling finish, the pilot shall transmit "[Contest ID] four miles, rolling finish."
10.9.4.3 Pilots performing a rolling finish shall touch down and roll to a stop as specified by the CD, and will be timed as the
sailplane comes to a complete stop.

10.9.4.4 If announced by the CD prior to the start of competition, a time adjustment will be added to rolling finishes. This
adjustment will be based on the vertical and horizontal distance between the rolling finish and the location designated for a flying
finish.

Both finishes, share the same thing, as the pilot must cross a line to finish. The height is what's different and the "gate" allows a rolling finish where the "cylinder" does not. The cylinder doesn't allow speed points for making the airport below MFH-200 feet. Since a rolling finish is allowed for a "gate" with slightly reduced speed points, then a rolling finish should also be allowed for a cylinder, making it constant for both types of finishes. If an entrant can not make the MFH as in a cylinder, then a rolling finish, with a few added minutes, shouldn't it be allowed to get the reduced speed points? The "few minutes" which can be set by the CD at each contest site. Remember we have rules for unsafe flying, patterns and landings.

#711.

I've always preferred a finish gate for one big reason - it drastically decreases "clockwatching" while approaching the finish, allowing more time for looking out and finding/avoiding conflicting traffic while planning how to merge into the pattern. And since you knew that you could finish either high or low, you could have a plan for each case; if high and in traffic, stay high; if alone, push over and finish fast and low; if really low, call a rolling finish and squeak in. Done all of them, and never worried about losing points by being too low, or trying to ooch over an invisible line in the sky...

Now with flarm, getting surprised by someone at the finish should be rare.

I do see the potential problem of a lot of finishers at the same time at a small field - which is where a cylinder makes sense to give everyone time (altitude) to sequence for landing.

But at a big field with lots of landing room - perhaps some brave CDs should try some gate finishes (perhaps tied to -gasp! - a speed task) and see how pilots like it.

kirk
66