FES in Contests

On Friday, February 14, 2014 3:30:47 PM UTC-6, son_of_flubber wrote:

I'm just saying that some risks like circling at low AGL and being low and far from a landable field could be quantified and incorporated into scoring. I don't expect sailplane competition to do much if any of that in a general way ever.

It is. Low is slow. If you land out you lose the day. If you break your glider you are out of the contest. If you die your wife gets rich and somebody else gets your stereo!

Maybe the idea would get traction on something (like OLC) that incorporated safety margins in scoring. GPS logs make that possible.

What problem are you trying to solve? Or, setup a contest the way you like it and see if others agree and come and play.

As far as road rallying - you ever watch rallying on TV? No risk taking? YGBSM!
What you are talking about is a poker run. Which is fun too...

Kirk
66

Degreed mechanical engineer. My wife is a PhD in ME from UofM. Pseudo means that I am not practicing and have long since moved on to higher income activities. Got it now?

A few thoughts.

For now, the Handicap Committee and Rules Committee have taken the view that handicapping should be based on the aerodynamic character of the glider, with no regard to engine presence.

Engines do confer an overall competitive advantage. Even if the motor pilot does not fly over unlandable terrain counting on the iron thermal, powering home from a landout rather than an exhausting all night retrieve makes a difference the next day -- and knowing that the big retrieve is not an issue may let MG pilots press on even over very safe terrain.

There is some sentiment that they should bear some points handicap for those advantages. Some of the reason they didn't have an airport bonus without landing was sort of a way to handicap their exhaustion advantage in retrieves. The RC changed that for this year, restoring the airport bonus to a pure safety issue. But the feeling was there.

So, this is a big philosophical question really -- do you want motorgliders to pay some extra handicap based on the competitive benefit they get from being able to motor home? A worthy discussion for polls, SRA meetings, and long RAS threads!

On "points penalty for thermaling low", that idea exists, hard deck. A system of SUA files with minimum altitudes, below which you are scored as landing out. Now land, thermal, motor home, whatever, it's up to you not points. "hard deck" can and should be higher over unlandable terrain.

At SRA meetings, pilots hoot, holler and get out the tar and feathers any time this idea is mentioned.

John Cochrane

On Friday, February 14, 2014 6:40:48 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

As far as road rallying - you ever watch rallying on TV? No risk taking? YGBSM!

We're talking about two different kinds of "road rally". Follow my original link if you want to understand what I'm talking about

http://www.ner.org/rally/rdral/about-road-rally

On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:43:02 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:

I'm truly ignorant of how risk taking is rewarded in sailplane racing, but the 11% flying mortality rate for world champion glider pilots made an impression. I realize that lower levels of racing involve on average less risk taking.


Someone pointed out to me off-line that my cited percentage is wrong. I apologize for my mistake.

My original source is
http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html

On rereading the article I see that it notes 3 out of 30 GERMAN world champions died in glider accidents, which would be 10%. Someone later corrected me on RAS that the number of German world champions was 32, and mental error rounded 3/32 to 11% (should be 9%).

And of course there are additional world champions who did not fly for Germany and who did not die in glider accidents. To avoid propagation of additional wrong information, I will not attempt to calculate the correct mortality rate for all world champions.

Engines do confer an overall competitive advantage. Even if the motor pilot does not fly over unlandable terrain counting on the iron thermal, powering home from a landout rather than an exhausting all night retrieve makes a difference the next day -- and knowing that the big retrieve is not an issue may let MG pilots press on even over very safe terrain.


After flying My Silent Club, I can agree with you on SOME DAYS.

Other days when lift is weak and I struggle to climb I would be much better off with a lighter wing loading, but I cannot dump my motor or gas.

Kevin
92

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 9:29:52 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote:
On Friday, February 14, 2014 11:43:02 AM UTC-5, son_of_flubber wrote: I'm truly ignorant of how risk taking is rewarded in sailplane racing, but the 11% flying mortality rate for world champion glider pilots made an impression. I realize that lower levels of racing involve on average less risk taking. Someone pointed out to me off-line that my cited percentage is wrong. I apologize for my mistake. My original source is http://www.dg-flugzeugbau.de/safety-comes-first-e.html On rereading the article I see that it notes 3 out of 30 GERMAN world champions died in glider accidents, which would be 10%. Someone later corrected me on RAS that the number of German world champions was 32, and mental error rounded 3/32 to 11% (should be 9%). And of course there are additional world champions who did not fly for Germany and who did not die in glider accidents. To avoid propagation of additional wrong information, I will not attempt to calculate the correct mortality rate for all world champions.

I'm failing to understand what point you are trying to make.
You seem to have drawn some conclusions about competition soaring that do not agree with my experience over the last 37 years.
Some of this may be a result of dramatic comments on this site related to low circling. This ocasionally does happen and we try to discouarge it, in part so that more militant "safety advocates" can't get a foot hold on this topic.
It is true that in contests we fly on days that we might not assemble at home, and sometimes over terrain that is far less that hospitable, and in difficult weather. That is simply part of the sport. Those of us that write rules, run contests, and call tasks work hard to make the sport as safe as practical without destroying the challange that brought us to it in the first place.
If you have not been to a contest and watched how it is done, you really have no idea what you are talking about.
There are many opportunities in the sport and likely competition is not for you, but maybe you should go look before drawing your conclusions.
Hopefully this thread can become unhijacked.
UH

On Friday, February 14, 2014 6:00:21 PM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

We're talking about two different kinds of "road rally". Follow my original link if you want to understand what I'm talking about

Yes and no. I've participated in your kind of road rally (no way I could do the other kind!) and it isn't always as docile as you imagine - make one navigation mistake and you have to go balls to the wall to make up time. It was pretty exciting.

Perhaps your rallying experience is different. Probably a better navigator ;^)

Kirk
66

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 7:29:52 AM UTC-7, son_of_flubber wrote:

On rereading the article I see that it notes 3 out of 30 GERMAN world champions died in glider accidents, which would be 10%. Someone later corrected me on RAS that the number of German world champions was 32, and mental error rounded 3/32 to 11% (should be 9%).

The article (a great one that everyone should read, by the way) isn't about world champions dying while racing, it's about highly experienced pilots dying while flying - and not during contests, by the way! So while it is relevant to gliding safety (or lack thereof) on the whole, it is not relevant to the topic of racing dangers.

Does anyone know of any world champions that have died WHILE RACING? I don't. Probably because they are smart enough to know that you can't win if you are dead...

Kirk
66

Let me put my flame suit on first...

I find it ludicrous that "racing pilots" want "safety rules" to prevent
"better racers" from doing things that they are uncomfortable with.
Example: I'm afraid (or not dumb enough) to circle below 700' AGL and, if
it's allowed by contest rules to do so, I won't stand a chance against the
guy who's willing to do that. Therefore, I'll lobby for a rule that
penalizes those pilots who circle below that altitude (or finish the race
below a particular altitude). That way I'll have an "equal" chance to win.
And I'll claim that the rule is for our "safety". Nobody can argue with
"safety". Yeah, that's it... No more scoring. Everybody's a winner!

Alternatively, I can elect not to race in a contest which "allows" behavior
that I'm not comfortable with.

Personally, I don't like the regimentation that goes along with contest
flying so I choose not to fly in contests. I flew in three contests in the
past 25+ years, had a great time, placed all over the score sheet, and
decided it's not for me. I like to just go somewhere and have a good time
doing it. So, if you decide to fly in a contest at Moriarty, I'll tow you
or fly the sniffer and mark the first thermal, but then I'll head off in a
direction different than the task area.


"son_of_flubber" wrote in message
...
On Friday, February 14, 2014 1:13:46 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:

But you say you don't want to participate in a competition that rewards
risk taking? So, please name one type of competition that doesn't reward
some kind of risk taking?


I'm just saying that some risks like circling at low AGL and being low and
far from a landable field could be quantified and incorporated into
scoring. I don't expect sailplane competition to do much if any of that in
a general way ever.

Maybe the idea would get traction on something (like OLC) that
incorporated safety margins in scoring. GPS logs make that possible.