Barnaby Lecture

On Oct 6, 10:34*am, jcarlyle wrote:

There were many good points that you made, but I was intrigued by your
claim that the US encouraged safer behavior than the Europeans via
deliberate rules changes.

Yes, this caught my attention too. One could look at the highly
dangerous US practice of changing a task in the air 10 minutes before
task opening and draw a quite different conclusion.

I suppose it all depends on which particular rules touch your hot
button.

I enjoyed reading the lecture though as I've been around long enough
to experinece all the changes being discussed. I had 3 incidents
running start lines and don't miss then at all, but I still prefer the
50ft line finish although I seldom finished that low. Nothing to do
with any buzz from flying low, just that the whole thing can be
executed eyes outside where they belong.

Andy

In article
,
John Cochrane wrote:

I had the honor of giving the Ralph S. Barnaby lecture at the fall
Board of Directors' meeting. The title is "The evolution of US contest
soaring," which I sort of talked about but couldn't resist adding an
editorial here and there. If you're really, really bored at the
office, you might enjoy the talk:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...s/barnaby.html

John Cochrane



Excellent! I could maybe find a little something here and there to
quibble with, but your essay is overwhelmingly excellent.

The "Vision" section should be required reading for all.

At 23:23 05 October 2010, John Cochrane wrote:
I had the honor of giving the Ralph S. Barnaby lecture at the fall
Board of Directors' meeting. The title is "The evolution of US contest
soaring," which I sort of talked about but couldn't resist adding an
editorial here and there. If you're really, really bored at the
office, you might enjoy the talk:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...s/barnaby.html

John Cochrane


Excellent thinking all round, especially on defining when points are given
and withheld on safety grounds.

Just one thought that when it comes to sorting out the confusion of
classes, that we ought to include manufacturers in the discussion.
They have long lead times and high development costs. Handicapping a
reduced number of classes (which is a good incentive for pilots who don't
have the latest hardware) would remove the designers incentive to push the
technology.
Hopefully new class rules would retain some incentive to apply the latest
in aerodynamics and structures but with a greater emphasis on value for
money at all performance levels.
They should also give manufacturers stability over time to recoup their
costs.
I like to dream about 70:1 but I also want to be able to afford 50:1.
Performance does broaden one's horizons.

At 00:16 07 October 2010, Iain Murdoch wrote:
At 23:23 05 October 2010, John Cochrane wrote:
I had the honor of giving the Ralph S. Barnaby lecture at the fall
Board of Directors' meeting. The title is "The evolution of US
contest
soaring," which I sort of talked about but couldn't resist adding an
editorial here and there. If you're really, really bored at the
office, you might enjoy the talk:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...s/barnaby.html

John Cochrane


Excellent thinking all round, especially on defining when points are
given
and withheld on safety grounds.

Just one thought that when it comes to sorting out the confusion of
classes, that we ought to include manufacturers in the discussion.
They have long lead times and high development costs. Handicapping a
reduced number of classes (which is a good incentive for pilots who
don't
have the latest hardware) would remove the designers incentive to push
the
technology.
Hopefully new class rules would retain some incentive to apply the
latest
in aerodynamics and structures but with a greater emphasis on value for
money at all performance levels.
They should also give manufacturers stability over time to recoup their
costs.
I like to dream about 70:1 but I also want to be able to afford 50:1.
Performance does broaden one's horizons.



Just had an idea!
To retain a sense of spectacle and for the sake of pilots who enjoy low
finishes;
Have a finish line at 1000', 1 mile out from the airfield, and then give
a bonus out of 20 points for a low pass and safe circuit as awarded by a
panel of judges on the ground. Strictly Gliding?

(Thinking about it, pilots should be required to do a clearance turn
before diving to gain speed.)

On Oct 6, 11:34*am, jcarlyle wrote:
John,

Very good job! Thoughtful and well written...

Snip---

I also really agree with this statement: "The natural progression of
our sport should be from license, to thermaling, to cross country, and
then to contests – without losing 95% at each step of the way." The
question is: *how do we convince them?

Snip----

I expect the most effective answer is to get them started flying XC
while they're young.

Young people are far more adventuresome than older folks - unless
those older folks were fortunate enough to become comfortable with XC
while they were younger. I think, for many people, there is a "window
of opportunity" in their teens and 20's when they are receptive to
cross country glider flying.

To test this theory, we need to find a way to get a large number young
folks into cross country flying. One way is to support youth soaring
through Mike Westbrook's SSA Youth Committee.

I also note there seems to be a large number of gliders sitting around
in trailers which never fly. Finding a way to put these in the hands
of qualified and insured young pilots so they could explore XC and
contest flying might have a very promising long-term effect on the
population of contest pilots.

Bill Daniels

On Oct 5, 7:23*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
I had the honor of giving the Ralph S. Barnaby lecture at the fall
Board of Directors' meeting. The title is "The evolution of US contest
soaring," which I sort of talked about but couldn't resist adding an
editorial here and there. If you're really, really bored at the
office, you might enjoy the talk:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...Papers/barnaby...

John Cochrane

John,

Only 15 gliders at the 2010 15 meter nationals? I would have sworn
there were 29 entrants at the 15m Nats at Uvalde, and 27 entrants at
the 18m Nats at Waynesville. Maybe you were thinking of the 2009
season, or am I missing something basic?

John,

Only 15 gliders at the 2010 15 meter nationals? *I would have sworn
there were 29 entrants at the 15m Nats at Uvalde, and 27 entrants at
the 18m Nats at Waynesville. *Maybe you were thinking of the 2009
season, or am I missing something basic?

Typo fixed, thanks
John

On Oct 8, 9:58*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:


Well done, John! I especially enjoyed and share your vision for the
future. It IS about time for another Region 7 Contest with high
attendance!

Mike
PIK-20B
CN

On Oct 5, 7:23*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:
I had the honor of giving the Ralph S. Barnaby lecture at the fall
Board of Directors' meeting. The title is "The evolution of US contest
soaring," which I sort of talked about but couldn't resist adding an
editorial here and there. If you're really, really bored at the
office, you might enjoy the talk:

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...Papers/barnaby...

John Cochrane

39 to 1 @ 80 knots is good. 39 against a proposal and 1 for is not. It
should send a very strong message that we do not like your proposal.

Lets suppose the the 600 foot altitude AGL was accepted. No more ridge
flying. A release at New Castle is usually less than 600 feet above
the ridge. Some pilots are safer at 500 feet than others at 2500.

Judgment cannot be legislated nor can safety. On needs to be
responsible for their own actions.

We could have a relatively safe contest that consisted of a spot
landing at an assigned time provided only one glider was airborne at
any given time.

Flarm may help, it will definitely make an already expensive sport
more expensive. It will also contribute to more heads in the cockpit.

Around 1985 things started down hill. Everybody had a competitive
glider and showed up expecting to win. Aggressiveness in lieu of
experience was a large factor.

New pilots will never be encouraged to fly xcountry when taught by
instructors that have never flown xc or don't even have a silver
badge. Same applies to spins


AH

Lets suppose the the 600 foot altitude AGL was accepted. No more ridge
flying. A release at New Castle is usually less than 600 feet above
the ridge. Some pilots are safer at 500 feet than others at 2500.

"Hard deck" can accomodate ridges; the ridge sticks out of the hard
deck; one can even keep the sua 1 mile up wind of the ridge so that
ridges less than 600' can be worked. There is no technical reason why
"hard deck" can't be implemented. Philosophical objections are a
different thing of cours.e


Judgment cannot be legislated nor can safety. On needs to be
responsible for their own actions.

Read the rest of the article. This attitude is dealt with carefully.
The pilot is and always will be responsible for actions. The rules are
responsible for deciding which actions will get contest points. .

John Cochrane