Seniors USA 2009 Start and Finish notes..... # 711 reporting

On Mar 19, 8:06*am, "
wrote:
Anyone for a Retro race? *3000' Start Gate ("Ready...Mark, good
start!"), assigned speed tasks only, have to fly around the turnpoint
throught a photosector, and a 50 finish line? *And no whining?-


Your memory of the old days is fading. We had a turnpoint and a photo
target. Whether you flew round (outside) the turnpoint depended on
the relationship of the turnpoint and photo target to the task legs,
and on the technique used to position for the photo.

But I share the sentiment about line finishes. There was a pleasant
lack of ambiguity about what had to be achieved and for most finishes
it was all visual reference from 10 miles (or more) to the finish. In
addition there was a ground observer with a radio to provide alerts if
there was a traffic conflict that had not been seen by the involved
pilots. The line finish worked well and was safe if all contestants
flew the same assigned task. The risk went up if finishers could come
from different directions.

I never had a scare on a line finish and did not consider them unsafe.

Andy

I never had a scare on a line finish and did not consider them unsafe.

Andy


The main reason for the higher finish is not really teh high - energy
low passt. There have been occasional problems and crashes with those,
but not really that many.

The real problem with low finishes is the occasional low energy
marginal final glide. There have been plenty of crashes in "fields"
1-2 miles from the airport, on the airport fence, and plenty more
crashes involving low energy over the airport itself. The reports from
UK 15 meter nationals in "sailplane and gliding" last fall were a good
case in point. Pushing the finish point up is a strong discouragement
to a Mc0 + 10 feet glide, and the resulting of- field landing 1 mile
out and 150 feet up when it suddenly becomes clear that's Mc0-10
feet.

And "I've never had a problem" is a poor approach to safety. All the
guys posting to rec.russian.roulette say they haven't had any problems
either

John Cochrane

On Mar 18, 4:53*pm, "noel.wade" wrote:
On Mar 18, 12:06*pm, Mike the Strike wrote:

So, if I can summarize, the new start and finish rules result in the
following:

1) Your instruments may not show you the distance from the start to
the first turn.

Huh? *Is there a _need_ to show this distance? *Can't you see the
start cylinder on your moving map and make a mental note of the
distance to the next waypoint that you see flash up on the screen as
your little glider symbol crosses the cylinder edge? *Or doesn't your
flight computer make a noise or pop up a note on the screen when you
exit the cylinder? *I can get all of this with my PDA running XCSoar
(or SeeYou)...

And since you're now being given credit for the distance you fly (from
whatever point you exit the cylinder), things should actually be less-
hard... *You no longer have to worry about being credit for distance
you didn't fly; or not getting credit for distance you _did_ fly (if
you exit out the back or something). *So the strategy is simple: *Fly
as fast and efficiently as you can (safely) from wherever you exit the
start cylinder until you make the first turnpoint. *What's the
problem?

2) Your instruments may not indicate the location of the finish.

If you want to cut it down to a 1' margin, you are correct. *Your
instruments may be off by 20 or 50 feet. *How many times have you
landed at the end of the day and checked your altimeter? *I bet it is
_not_ showing the same "field elevation" that you set when you took
off! *It might be off by *gasp* *20 to 50 feet, or more!

I'm a computer professional by day - but flying is not a "digital"
realm. *You make do and you leave a little bit of a margin, and you
live with it. *What is the time cost for slowing down during the last
mile or two of your final glide... 5 to 10 seconds? *OK, stretch that
out to 5 days of flying. *You've now "lost" perhaps 30 - 45 seconds
(and you've guaranteed that you won't get a finishing penalty)...

How many of you experienced racers have lost a Regional or National
because of a cumulative 45 seconds or less over the _entire_ event?

Or to look at this another way: *In the "olden days", how would you
determine whether you're inside the turnpoint radius (or within 1
degree of the sector edge) just by looking at a wing-tip photo? *Can't
be accurate down to 1' or 1-degree there, either!

3) Although it's a race, you may have to slow down at the finish.

Yes, that's a bummer. *But have you ever watched a NASCAR or Formula 1
race? *Sure when they're all coming to the finish bunched up together
they push to the end - but when someone has a lead or they're coming
to the checkered flag one-at-a-time, they back off and ensure that
they make it safely across the finish.

As a newbie to the sport, would I *like* a chance to make a high speed
low pass as a part of the experience (OK, a few hundred feet off the
deck, for a modicum of safety)? *Sure! *But that's an ego/adrenaline
thing - it has nothing to do with determining who the best pilot is or
who wins the race. *We can't survive a wreck or even a minor mishap
like the auto-racing folks can (I know, I used to race in NASCAR, the
SCCA, and a few other series), so sometimes we have to temper our
enthusiasm and back it off just enough to ensure that no more good
pilots die needlessly at the beginning or end of a contest flight.

--Noel
(Also a big fan of the OLC, for the record:http://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2.0....html?sp=2008&...
)

What you didn't pick up in my description of the finish I fly is that
I fly a little faster further out and then
coast across the line. While the other guy is flying slower to save
height for his fancy finish dive, I'm getting ahead of him and he
never catches up.
Not showey- but faster around the course.
UH

On Mar 19, 4:50*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

The real problem with low finishes is the occasional low energy
marginal final glide. There have been plenty of crashes in "fields"
1-2 miles from the airport, on the airport fence, and plenty more
crashes involving low energy over the airport itself. The reports from
UK 15 meter nationals in "sailplane and gliding" last fall were a good
case in point. Pushing the finish point up is a strong discouragement
to a Mc0 + 10 feet glide, *and the resulting of- field landing 1 mile

Unfortunately, minimum height rule hasn't eliminated these accidents.
We still have pilots pressing for the airport over unlandable terrain
with woefully inadequate margin.

-T8

John,

Okay, I'm a enthusiastic reader of just about everything you write,
but 'And "I've never had a problem" is a poor approach to safety' is a
poor approach to logical persuasion. I've been flying with Andy for
five years now so I know him pretty well, and "I've never had a
problem" is a convincing statement coming from someone as diligent as
he. He is the last guy you will find at our field playing Russian
roulette.

Poor piloting leads to crashes, not undermangled rules.

..02NO

On Mar 19, 1:50*pm, John Cochrane
wrote:

And "I've never had a problem" is a poor approach to safety. All the
guys posting to rec.russian.roulette say they haven't had any problems
either

It wan't an approach to safety in itself, rather an observation as to
what happened on my finishes after I had applied my approach to safety
during the final glide.

My approach to safety was to stop and work lift, even if weak, to make
sure I had adequate energy at the finish line even though I would be
slower than those that pressed on with a marginal glide. I don't win
many days

Andy

It doesn't make any sense to try to re-open the finish cylinder vs.
finish line debate because the Rules Committee has made its intentions
clear. But it's amusing to me to read the analyses and justifications
here for flying a proper cylinder finish: basically "do it sensibly
and no one will get hurt"; the same advice as we would give for a
finish line. The difference is that a finish line doesn't move around
and is clearly visible outside the cockpit. Yes, as BB points out, in
the past some pilots used poor judgment and "arrived" in a "field" a
mile or two short of the finish with unhappy results. Those are
probably the same guys who pull up or push over sharply just before
the cylinder. The difference is that the only people they hurt landing
short are themselves whereas they can hurt others in a cylinder
finish. Let's not be guilty of what I referred to in engineering
school as "first you draw the curve, then you plot the points." If you
believe the finish cylinder is safer, fine. But don't spend paragraphs
explaining how a smart pilot should do it sensibly to avoid injuring
others and, after the first mid-air on final glide, express anguish
because everything would have been safe if only the pilots had
exercised good judgment. Finish lines and finish cylinders don't hurt
pilots; poor judgment hurts pilots. We've just traded one set of
cautions for another, but the new cautions leave us focused more
inside the cockpit than the old ones.

There's also a phenomenon at work here called "the law of unintended
consequences" with regard to the Rules process but it doesn't serve us
well to open THAT discussion!

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA

Hi John

I flew the 15s last year. The two crashes just short were not really about
choosing to fly marginal final glides.

The task was flown on a showery day and the early finishers had to fly
through one that spanned the airfield and the last 5k to get home. They
had a choice to wait / go around (perhaps 10 mins or so) or fly through.
Both were very experienced and judged that they had more than enough
energy to finish. The shower changed that big time. Andy Hall is back on
his feet but has stopped gliding.

There were many other pilots finishing at the same time who did get
through. All said the shower had more impact on their glide than
expected.

I finished some 20 mins later without any problems other than having to
plan my final glide around the police / ambulance situation.

Jim


At 20:50 19 March 2009, John Cochrane wrote:

I never had a scare on a line finish and did not consider them unsafe.

Andy


The main reason for the higher finish is not really teh high - energy
low passt. There have been occasional problems and crashes with those,
but not really that many.

The real problem with low finishes is the occasional low energy
marginal final glide. There have been plenty of crashes in "fields"
1-2 miles from the airport, on the airport fence, and plenty more
crashes involving low energy over the airport itself. The reports from
UK 15 meter nationals in "sailplane and gliding" last fall were a good
case in point. Pushing the finish point up is a strong discouragement
to a Mc0 + 10 feet glide, and the resulting of- field landing 1 mile
out and 150 feet up when it suddenly becomes clear that's Mc0-10
feet.

And "I've never had a problem" is a poor approach to safety. All the
guys posting to rec.russian.roulette say they haven't had any problems
either

John Cochrane

On Mar 20, 3:45*am, Jim White wrote:
All said the shower had more impact on their glide than
expected.

Right. This was a factor in a couple of busted final glides turned
into bad landings in the US, as well.

This is OT, but worth poking into the consciousness: An especially
insidious phenomenon that turned up during debrief was positive
feedback between performance loss due to rain, the speed to fly vario
and the pilot. The vario "sees" the performance loss as sink and
tells the pilot to speed up, aggravating the performance loss, etc.
Good advice seems to be to fly a fixed airspeed, typically 60 knots.

-T8

On Mar 19, 2:59*pm, Andy wrote:
On Mar 19, 8:06*am, "
wrote:

Anyone for a Retro race? *3000' Start Gate ("Ready...Mark, good
start!"), assigned speed tasks only, have to fly around the turnpoint
throught a photosector, and a 50 finish line? *And no whining?-

Your memory of the old days is fading. *We had a turnpoint and a photo
target. *Whether you flew round (outside) the turnpoint depended on
the relationship of the turnpoint and photo target to the task legs,
and on the technique used to position for the photo.

But I share the sentiment about line finishes. *There was a pleasant
lack of ambiguity about what had to be achieved and for most finishes
it was all visual reference from 10 miles (or more) to the finish. *In
addition there was a ground observer with a radio to provide alerts if
there was a traffic conflict that had not been seen by the involved
pilots. *The line finish worked well and was safe if all contestants
flew the same assigned task. *The risk went up if finishers could come
from different directions.

I never had a scare on a line finish and did not consider them unsafe.

Andy

Not fading, just suggesting (tongue in cheek) a roughly equivalent
turnpoint process, without the actual camera and target ;). I
distinctly remember the aerobatic maneuvers sometimes needed to get
that stupid wingtip on the photo target, after the fun of finding the
actual target for the first time!

Cheers,

66