Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:



How about this







1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.







You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.







This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.







Hi Tim,







Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.







Andy



Andy,



You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.



Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.



If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.



Tim

agreed, and I agree with what hank said about it getting complicated with people getting set up to do their pattern after arriving at something above pattern altitude.

I personally like the idea of a line still, with the possibility of a rolling finish. i think in principle, you can make it onto the field in a safe manner even if you don't necessarily have enough to make a *full* pattern, but it's like the rolling stones say about getting what you want...

I do think it's egregious that you could be "landed out" even if you make it onto the field in a safe manner.

On 01/22/2014 2:45 PM, Andrew Brayer wrote:
I personally like the idea of a line still, with the possibility of a rolling finish. i think in principle, you can make it onto the field in a safe manner even if you don't necessarily have enough to make a*full* pattern, but it's like the rolling stones say about getting what you want...


I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year. In
my opinion it is the safest option available. Even on a MAT or a Turn
Area Task, all you have to do is set up a mandatory 1 mile steering turn
point (same for all classes) and you're set...

Luke

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:55:32 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year.
In my opinion it is the safest option available...

Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
close to the airport?

See race day 7:
http://www.nadler.com/public/2013_Hobbs/2013_Hobbs.html

Some of us will make sure to have safe options,
but not all, and it cannot be legislated to cover
all conditions anyway...

On 01/22/2014 3:31 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
close to the airport?

The pilot would have blown his final glide regardless unless you are
implying that a 500 foot cylinder 1 mile away from the airport would
have magically improves a gliders L/D... It doesn't matter whether we
are aiming for a point 50 feet AGL at the airport, 500 at 1 mile or 1200
at 4 miles we still have to calculate a proper final glide. I much
rather be aiming at the airport that I can see than some fictional point
in 3d space...

Luke

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:56:06 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
...It doesn't matter whether we
are aiming for a point 50 feet AGL at the airport, 500 at 1 mile...

For those of us flying gliders who don't lose 450 feet/mile,
it makes a large difference ;-)

All this talk of "safety" and you post a picture you took of your
speedometer while driving at 72 MPH? And probably on a two lane road.
Sheesh...


"Dave Nadler" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:55:32 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year.
In my opinion it is the safest option available...

Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
close to the airport?

See race day 7:
http://www.nadler.com/public/2013_Hobbs/2013_Hobbs.html

Some of us will make sure to have safe options,
but not all, and it cannot be legislated to cover
all conditions anyway...

On Thursday, January 23, 2014 10:12:42 AM UTC-6, Dan Marotta wrote:
All this talk of "safety" and you post a picture you took of your speedometer while driving at 72 MPH? And probably on a two lane road. Sheesh...

Yeah. That is way too slow, Dave. I have taken pictures of the speedo at upwards of 100 MPH on two lane roads. Step it up, will ya?

Actually, Dan. Dave's picture was of the odometer. Just happens you also get to see the speedometer. :-)

Steve

If a 700ft finish is too low for a 18 meter national contest, then it is probably too low for a Regional. Yes, I understand the caveat of diving off a ridge and would not have a problem with that.

Last year at Perry and at Cordele, I was racing my Silent-IN, the 12 meter, 31/1 L/D.

We had 700 foot finishes at both sites. I understand this is comfortable for a modern 15 or 18 meter ship and leaves plenty of margin.

This does not leave much if any margin for me, and found that I needed to take extra height to be safe.

I am racing too, and this leaves us essentially racing to a different finish points. You are racing to a finish height that gives you an adequate safety margin and I am racing to the same point, but having to take more altitude for the same safety factor.

I understand UH's comment about immediately joining the pattern in an orderly fashion, but I think this could also be done with a 1000 foot finish and some more spoilers added.

This also gives a little more room is someone has a problem on landing and obstructs the runway.

Kevin
192

Good points Kevin.

On Friday, January 24, 2014 8:01:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:
If a 700ft finish is too low for a 18 meter national contest, then it is probably too low for a Regional. Yes, I understand the caveat of diving off a ridge and would not have a problem with that.



Last year at Perry and at Cordele, I was racing my Silent-IN, the 12 meter, 31/1 L/D.



We had 700 foot finishes at both sites. I understand this is comfortable for a modern 15 or 18 meter ship and leaves plenty of margin.



This does not leave much if any margin for me, and found that I needed to take extra height to be safe.



I am racing too, and this leaves us essentially racing to a different finish points. You are racing to a finish height that gives you an adequate safety margin and I am racing to the same point, but having to take more altitude for the same safety factor.



I understand UH's comment about immediately joining the pattern in an orderly fashion, but I think this could also be done with a 1000 foot finish and some more spoilers added.



This also gives a little more room is someone has a problem on landing and obstructs the runway.



Kevin

192

On Friday, January 24, 2014 8:01:17 AM UTC-5, wrote:
If a 700ft finish is too low for a 18 meter national contest, then it is probably too low for a Regional. Yes, I understand the caveat of diving off a ridge and would not have a problem with that. Last year at Perry and at Cordele, I was racing my Silent-IN, the 12 meter, 31/1 L/D. We had 700 foot finishes at both sites. I understand this is comfortable for a modern 15 or 18 meter ship and leaves plenty of margin. This does not leave much if any margin for me, and found that I needed to take extra height to be safe. I am racing too, and this leaves us essentially racing to a different finish points. You are racing to a finish height that gives you an adequate safety margin and I am racing to the same point, but having to take more altitude for the same safety factor. I understand UH's comment about immediately joining the pattern in an orderly fashion, but I think this could also be done with a 1000 foot finish and some more spoilers added. This also gives a little more room is someone has a problem on landing and obstructs the runway. Kevin 192

I Fly an ASK-21 that has similar performance in a couple contests each year.. If the finish position and the pattern are such that I think we will need a bit more margin, I add it in the last couple miles and get on with it. That is part of what handicapped racing is about.
Most finishes set at 700 feet result in a bit more altitude available because few fly the finish perfectlyand most have some excess energy.
In any case, if pilots at a race have a concern about the finish height, the CD has the option to adjust it. That said, at a big contest like Perry, adjusting the finish and complicating the pattern for 65 gliders to accomodate 1 or 2 makes not too much sense.
UH