When is too many at a glider meet

Earlier, "Glen" wrote (full post with headers at bottom):

Last year about 10% went home with damaged gliders, from
what I heard not much organization, too busy going to the
bank.

In no particular order:

* More likely everyone who opened their trailer went home with a "damaged" glider. Scratches and dings are a fact of life.

* There is no sector of soaring with much "going to the bank." The majority of our sport is subsidized by near-symbiotic relationships.

* Care to tell us who you "heard" this from?

Thanks, Bob K.



X-Received: by 10.42.207.140 with SMTP id fy12mr36843021icb.3.1435146516044;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:48:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-BeenThe
Received: by 10.107.6.223 with SMTP id f92ls521087ioi.22.gmail; Wed, 24 Jun
2015 04:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.66.146.227 with SMTP id tf3mr53917841pab.21.1435146513715;
Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
X-Received: by 10.140.33.76 with SMTP id i70mr271143qgi.14.1435146513665; Wed,
24 Jun 2015 04:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
Path: k20ni3150qgd.0!nntp.google.com!q107no3036695qgd.0! postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups .com!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.soaring
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 04:48:33 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To:
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=2600:1007:b018:2650:2498:5b13:db2e:f255;
posting-account=4i71lQoAAAAQkiQP27wpT7T6vFfR1eo1
NNTP-Posting-Host: 2600:1007:b018:2650:2498:5b13:db2e:f255
References:
User-Agent: G2/1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID:
Subject: When is too many at a glider meet
From: glen
Injection-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 11:48:33 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the=
Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, e=
ven if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cr=
oss country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense =
of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at=
once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep inc=
reasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

Last year about 10% went home with damaged gliders, from what I heard not m=
uch organization, too busy going to the bank.

On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 5:48:36 AM UTC-6, glen wrote:
Glen,
I was there last year and can be counted in as a "damaged glider" due to a small rock chip on the underside of my fuselage from landing on the grass strip. The only damaged gliders I saw were caused at the airport by non attentive pilots/crews going down the taxi and hitting landing lights. Plus there was one damaged by running off the end of a 6,000' runway through the approach lights. Yes a tow-plane did experience an engine fatality on the ground. All the above were due to individual mistakes not the number of gliders...
Tom
One Idah


di age On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 12:02:06 AM UTC-4, 2G wrote:
I recently learned that Bruno has increased the number of gliders for the Nephi, UT event to 80. That's right, eight zero. IMHO, that is too many, even if FLARM is mandated. There will be pilots there from virtually zero cross country time to seasoned racers. They may be lulled into a false sense of complacency until a storm forces the entire field back to the airport at once, creating chaos. I get the bad feeling that this number will keep increasing - or stay the same - until there is a fatality.

Last year about 10% went home with damaged gliders, from what I heard not much organization, too busy going to the bank.

Well doggone it! Now the cat is out of the bag. Just imagine what is gonna happen when people learn that hosting a contest is a money-making proposition. Every club, commercial operator, airport operator, and investment banker will be lining up to host glider contests. I fully expect Donald Trump to drop out of the presidential race and host several glider contests just to line his pockets. I'm sure the SSA is sorry they were not able to keep this secret for the few anointed parties who have been getting wealthy hosting contests year after year. /sarc/

How about we keep it a bit more civil. The results and positive posts about the event speak louder than any of the name calling. I look forward to flying the nationals there next year. "Keep it classy San Diego".

Boy, is this a tough crowd!

For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.

Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!

Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!

Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.

Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.

Okay, fire away, I can take it.

Tom

On Friday, July 10, 2015 at 9:40:30 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
Boy, is this a tough crowd!

For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.

Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!

Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!

Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.

Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.

Okay, fire away, I can take it.

Tom

Uh oh. He's found the caps lock key.

"2G" wrote in message
...

Boy, is this a tough crowd!

For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in
the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that
information.

Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY
criticized it!

Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and
reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult
for a change!

Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how
many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY
NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched
faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture.
Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The
issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky
theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window.
And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that
pilots fly at high speed at each other.

Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors
here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying
practices.

Okay, fire away, I can take it.

Tom

This was an SSA sanctioned air meet, though not a ranking competition. The
SSA sanction limit of 65 was in effect as well as the SSA pilot waivers and
insurance requirements. As I approved this sanction, I did take time to
verify attendance with the organizers following your original post.

As to how many gliders are too many for a particular venue, there are some
sensible things to consider before entertaining a waiver above the sanction
limit. There are also sensible reasons to set a lower limit. These
organizers have the upcoming Logan Mountain Flying Camp and have set a limit
of 40 for this sanctioned event.

I think there are a few housekeeping items the SSA needs to consider
regarding the sanctions of OLC/XC and other themed camps, just to clarify
the sanction boundaries and requirements.

Regards,

Frank Whiteley
SSA Director, Region 9
970-330-2050 7am-10pm MDT

Boy, is this a tough crowd!

People call it like they see it, true.

For the record, the number of 80 entrants was from someone participating in the event, but they expected some no-shows. So I do not apologize for that information.

Apology noted. Also for the record, the SSA event page clearly stated the 65 limit and that the event was oversubscribed. Also, the participant list detailed "confirmed" vs "wait list" so no matter what bad info you may have received, it would have been simple to verify that the info was bad before firing off a post. This is a public forum and predicting fatalities is about as irresponsible as you can get when your facts are wrong.

Second, I didn't make a "thinly veiled" criticism of the event, I DIRECTLY criticized it!

And you didn't have the facts on your side (with regard to actual participants, nor any specific knowledge of the airport facilities, operations or surrounding landable fields when you did it so I don't see how this clarification represents an improvement.

Third, calling me a "troll" or an "asshole" or whatever is childish and reflects much more on the author than myself. Get real, try being an adult for a change!

Okay, but you kind of had it coming by predicting fatalities and then doubling down when the facts turned against you.

Finally, only one of you, indirectly, addressed the original question: how many is too many? Having an efficiently run organization has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with this issue!! That only means the gliders are launched faster; once they are in the air the event organizer is out of the picture. Most of you guys are trying to defend Bruno - that IS NOT the issue! The issue is how many gliders can a site accommodate safely. And the Big Sky theory is BUNK! You get a marginal day and that theory is out the window. And on good days it is bunk as well; lift organizes itself into streets that pilots fly at high speed at each other.

I think you mostly missed the point. The criticism isn't with the theoretical question of what is the maximum capacity of a glider site or even asking it about a specific site. It was that you didn't ask the question, you asserted an answer without any demonstrable knowledge of the circumstances of the event or even the correct number of participants.

Specifically, for Nephi, it is really hard to construct a scenario where 60 (or 80) gliders launched 90-plus minutes apart and flying at altitudes from 6,000 to as much as 17,000 feet all get knocked out of the sky by a storm at exactly the same time (where none of them have headed out on course to escape the approaching storm) such that none can orbit more than 30 seconds, all the ground help is incapacitated, everyone lands midfield and just sits in their glider and no one decides to use the cross runway, the 7000x250 feet of turf to the west, the infield or any of the three dozen landable fields within range of the downwind entry point. Is there a theoretical limit? Probably, but your "IMHO" assertion was, whether you meant it or not, a misinformed slander of an event that has had a lot of thought put into operations and specific lessons from prior events. Also, raising a midair concern and reiterating it now for an event that was PowerFLARM mandatory, seems particularly ill-advised (and "ready!-fire!-aim!).

Safety just doesn't seem to be a high priority here - one of my detractors here has been "disinvited" from an airport for repeated unsafe flying practices.

Not so - safety gets discussed regularly on r.a.s, generally with a great deal of seriousness. Also, an ad hominem criticism of the flying skills of a poster doesn't make his points incorrect nor does it validate the comment from you he might be criticizing. It's almost entirely irrelevant and comes across as a kind of "your momma" retort.

Okay, fire away, I can take it.

If you insist. :-)

Really Tom, it's not asking questions about safe operations that gets people jumping to defend Nephi, it's the assertion that they did it wrong and you know better. You don't. Your facts were wrong and your theories about what might happen were inconsistent with the operations and airport layout. When you double down on it you just dig the hole deeper. It is possible that some of the responses you got didn't come from daredevil morons who lack your insight or depth of experience operating large-scale glider events at Nephi or anywhere else.

There's a vast difference between making the last debating point and being right. A little active listening would go a long way. This is a public forum and wild assertions, if they stand uncorrected, can do damage to events, reputations and the sport more broadly.

With regards,

Andy
9B

He would probably fly a Quintus... Assuming you could still buy one... The Nimbus 4 is no longer considered competitive.

I realize your comments are satire, however, the Nimbus 4 is a wonderful glider and fully competitive in National contests. I think the Nimbus always gave away a bit to the ASW-22. The problem the Nimbus had was too much wing, which makes it a great fun glider. It can stay in the air when nothing else can. If you are not a world level competitor the Nimbus4 is an amazing glider, fun and easy to fly and it goes forever. I would have loved to buy a Quintus, but with the problems at Lange, no more Quintus

I do hope both Schempp and Schleicher get back into the single place open market with top designs!


On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 4:59:51 AM UTC-7, wrote:
He would probably fly a Quintus... Assuming you could still buy one... The Nimbus 4 is no longer considered competitive.