![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Here's a conceptually simple idea for contest pilots to rattle around... I believe it would be highly effective at reducing dangerous big gaggles that happen during contests. The desirables are that it doesn't damage the sport, it's effective at improving safety, it's easy to understand and it's easy to implement.
The idea is inspired by the blog comments from one of the collision pilots at the recent Hahnweide contest where dense gaggles did lead to a mid-air (fortunately in that incident all 3 pilots successfully parachuted). Let's require flarm log files from all contestants. Let's designate a 1 point penalty whenever a glider comes within 400 feet horizontal and 150 feet vertical of any other glider. For any pair of gliders that come within penalty range, both are docked 1 point without regard to who approached who. After 5 minutes, the same two gliders will be docked again if they come within penalty range again. A 400 foot horizontal rule would allow two gliders to safely fly across from one another in a thermal without penalty. Perhaps three gliders could fly together in a thermal if they space out and open the circle. Most likely, though, penalty points would result if more than three gliders attempt to thermal at the same level. The effect would be to de-motivate gaggle flying. Everyone would want to avoid crowds before the start and on task in order to keep his penalty count low. Pilots would be caused to fly their own machine and think for themselves and that would make for a better test of soaring skill afterall. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I don't know about changing things to spread people out, but some work has been done on how to penalize pilots whose flying meets criteria that could be defined as risky.
IGC has looked at WGC's with an interesting study based on IGC files from the 31st-34th WGC (includes Uvalde). It appears feasible to automate penalties in scoring software. Look at the thorough study published in 2017 at https://www.fai.org/sites/default/fi...ision_risk.pdf . Figure 28 shows what can be done. Take a look at the stats in Fig 28 - for one day! They suggest going to 1 sec interval for recorders - that could be done now to help with data gathering. It is an interesting read (to me anyhow). |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:53:48 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote:
I don't know about changing things to spread people out, but some work has been done on how to penalize pilots whose flying meets criteria that could be defined as risky. IGC has looked at WGC's with an interesting study based on IGC files from the 31st-34th WGC (includes Uvalde). It appears feasible to automate penalties in scoring software. Look at the thorough study published in 2017 at https://www.fai.org/sites/default/fi...ision_risk.pdf . Figure 28 shows what can be done. Take a look at the stats in Fig 28 - for one day! They suggest going to 1 sec interval for recorders - that could be done now to help with data gathering. It is an interesting read (to me anyhow). Dan, great resource & a very interesting read. Page 35 of the report has a graph of example penalties by competitor. Cross checking that with the contest results shows that the leaders would have had very few penalties. It also reveals there are several pilots that are best avoided. Even without penalties, showing these statistics at the beginning of each day's pilot's meeting might influence pilot behavior. https://www.soaringspot.com/en_gb/31...10-07-17/total Thanks, Craig |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
As quoted from report :
"Although task separation, longer distance tasks and use of AAT can all encourage greater sep- aration between gliders, it is well-known that none of these factors are entirely effective at eliminating gaggle behaviour particularly during the pre-start and post-start phase. This may explain why the data shows a few competition days of higher number of close encounters de- spite having a very large average glider separation." I know Sean is not going to like that. I understand back in the day of four hour Post tasks there were not a lot of gaggles. On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:53:48 PM UTC-7, Dan Daly wrote: I don't know about changing things to spread people out, but some work has been done on how to penalize pilots whose flying meets criteria that could be defined as risky. IGC has looked at WGC's with an interesting study based on IGC files from the 31st-34th WGC (includes Uvalde). It appears feasible to automate penalties in scoring software. Look at the thorough study published in 2017 at https://www.fai.org/sites/default/fi...ision_risk.pdf . Figure 28 shows what can be done. Take a look at the stats in Fig 28 - for one day! They suggest going to 1 sec interval for recorders - that could be done now to help with data gathering. It is an interesting read (to me anyhow). |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
To reduce gaggling and aggressive flying in contests, prohibit the use of parachutes. Would this change pilot behaviour, discuss ...
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Oh yes Dave it would change pilot behaviour. Nobody would turn up for the competition. That will certainly eliminate any chance of collision.
Clinton |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I applaud the work of John Wharington, but there are many troubles with the approach and software as it is now. It is very much version 0.01b .
The goal of such a software should be to discover not only dangerous situations, but also the "guilty" party. Just measuring the distance between 2 FLARMs is by far not good enough. An excellent example is on page 35, fig 28. This is a day 2 gliders collided in a WGC. Just from the graph, can you find which 2 gliders where involved? The answer is you can't, they have some of the lowest "scores" of the day. Of course you should really look at previous days data of the gliders, but that information is unavailable. I don't think you will learn much. On top of that, I've experienced the system in action during EGC Lasham. On one day I had the highest score of the day (but during the whole contest one of the lower ones). While I was in the cockpit that day, I already knew I would score very high that day. In a small group, I was close below and behind another glider in very good view of him. During other times I was close to my brother/team partner. Not a single moment or event was dangerous. I had a long discussion with the stewards about this, and I think we all agreed the system needs severe refinement. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Three different (albeit related) situations leading to potential collisions:
1. Competent pilots get close to each other in the ordinary course of contest flying. No problem. 2. Competent pilots get alarmingly close when one or both make a mistake or just bad timing. 3. "Repeat offenders", that short list we all have of pilots with whom we don't want to even share a gaggle, much less allow them to get close. Pilots who scare/worry us may do so without ever getting close. In one case, I was climbing strongly and saw two gliders aiming right at my thermal on a blue day and realized/guessed (correctly) they didn't see me and rolled out just in time to be safe. The next day, one of the two forced me to roll out again when he came right through my pre-start thermal, but once again without getting close enough to get my heart beating faster. In yet another case, a "repeat offender" was approaching a gaggle out on course where I was one of several on the same circle. He was obviously/obliviously watching the glider ahead of me as he came busting in so I pulled up and turned out to go over him, frustrating but not within "near miss" distance by my standards. Proximity to another glider is only one factor. I agree software can play a role here in identifying problems and perhaps even attributing fault, but I'm not sure automatic penalties, of any magnitude, is the way to do it, at least yet. Plus, as Andy notes, there are myriad potential unintended consequences. Chip Bearden |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I have flown in many competitions both regionals and nationals. Most of us
know which pilots are the less safe and avoid them if possible (maybe that's why I end up alone a lot!). I have also served on the safety committee. My experience is that no one ever 'shops' a dodgy pilot to the organisation. Something like at school! The attraction of logger evidence is that it is impersonal. The problem is us. Could we have anonymous reporting verified by trace evidence and a quiet word instead? Would that be effective? Jim |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I am not sure of the actual stats, but collisions during contests doesn't strike me as one of the top risks in soaring, although by far it is the most dramatic and one would think also the most open to suggestions how to fix.
My main problem with a points fix or software based fix is that the assumption is that poor/dangerous flying (skill or bad attitude) can be seen a long time before the actual event and therefore by some behavior modification brought about by negative rewards, the problem is significantly reduced. I am not believing it - I think the collision event happens with very little tell beforehand and for the most part dangerous pilots are already talk to - avoided in thermals - asked to leave the sport and generally persuaded not to fly in our contests where almost everyone knows everybody as friends.. There could be benefit in neg points making World class comps safer, but local/regional/ national races. Good luck changing the EU mind set. I think the most effective way to help avoid collisions at SSA contests is to discuss close encounters as an agenda item of every pilots meeting, just like weather, safety talk and winners speeches. That can do that with current files or just ask any one who had the rings screen come up on their Flarm or anyone who felt in danger, to tell the story about what happened in the air. My crew often says" we talk a good safety game on the ground and then become boys in the cockpit" - she is often right. I have only felt unsafe a hand full of times in contests - there is no format to share to feeling or the experience. I think we need one. WH |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Reducing PPG Concept Urethane | [email protected] | Soaring | 23 | January 28th 16 09:33 AM |
Reducing canopy glare caused by instrument face reflections. | [email protected] | Soaring | 1 | November 11th 13 09:22 PM |
Reducing Fuel use and Increasing your car speed with FFI MPG-CAPS | sexy girl | Piloting | 0 | February 23rd 08 05:47 AM |
Mexico hazard | Rich S. | Home Built | 4 | January 9th 06 10:42 PM |
Reducing the Accident Rate | Snowbird | Piloting | 92 | July 22nd 04 01:31 PM |