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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
BMacLean wrote:
Dumbing down competition for people who don't know how to do it but want to participate with everyone else is not fair to the pilots who have worked many years to learn the craft. It's supposed to be hard! I just thought I'd provide the complete movie quote for those who don't recognize where it comes from: "It's supposed to be hard! If it were easy, everyone would do it. It's the 'hard' that makes it great." -Tom Hanks "A League of Their Own" Columbia/Tristar 1992 p7 unit |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Blackburn wrote in message ...
I shold have been clearer on this point Eric. If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make it to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb. A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my ship requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might climb even higher if you want any buffer. I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer) and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold altitude. A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6 will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide to the inner part of the donut. The simple point here is that all of this climbing and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This is because the ground forces the issue later with the extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude separation (difference in glide angle times distance) goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal separation goes up with distance as well, the potential for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely increase under the 500' rule. You can make different assumptions about what altitude you might stop and climb, but the difference due to the rules remains the same. I don't see how this is any different; we have to see and avoid other sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the time that we have come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally anywhere on course, including directly over turn points. And even if you don't have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally and high-speed gliders in-bound to finish. I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy function and accept the result. |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
It is different Tom.
Yes, there are always climbing and cruising sailplanes in the mix. The difference is that the closer you are to the finish the more likely it is that gliders will be converging on each other (horizontally AND vertically) and the more likely it is that the cruising sailplanes will be doing something approaching redline rather than 75-100 knots. The logic for the difference is simple. If you know you can't make it home you are likely to be making outlanding preparations somewhere around 700-1,200 feet - depending on terrain and availability of landable fields. In the 'final glide gone bad' scenario you would come to this decision 5-10 miles out and either find a thermal or land (at least most pilots I know will - unless they're flying over a terrain so benign that it's like one big putting green). At this distance the higher speed traffic is well higher and hasn't started to burn off the extra altitude they are carrying as a buffer. The climbing glider won't likely climb up to them anyway unless it finds a real corker of a thermal (somewhat unlikely under 'low save' circumstances). The reason you don't often find gliders making low saves at less than 5 miles out today is that they've all landed out by then or made it home - put another way not many pilots set up for a landout from 500'. Under the proposed rule you can find yourself at 2.5 miles from home and 700' AGL with not enough altitude for a speed finish, but enough altitude to get home. What would you do in this situation? EXACTLY - you will hunt around the edge of the donut for lift. aHopefully, as you get lower you drift towards the airport to keep the landing option open (not sure if the rule allows for catching a thermal below 500' right over the airport, climbing up to enough height to go out to 2 miles and back above 500'). I suppose we could make a rule that if you EVER get below 500' AGL in a flight you're done, but it would probably only be enforceable in the flatlands of Kansas. So there you are climbing up at 2.5 miles out, trying to get enough altitude to make it to the inside edge of the donut at 500'. Say you'll accept a Mc=2 glide. Well at 2 miles the difference between a Mc=2 glide and a Mc=6 glide is 150'. So all the guys coming steaming home - now at close to redline will be more or less at your altitude. Under the current rules this is unlikely to happen at less than 6 miles out - where the differential altitude margin is three times as great and the speed differentials are somewhat lower. If you want some really interesting and action-packed finishes with a few poor pilots stuck outside the donut - able to glide to the airport but unable to finish for speed points - floating around at low altitude and mixing it up with gliders at redline - all within view of spectators - then this is your best shot. Wait, I forgot the best part! The guys at redline will have their heads in the cockpit, looking at their glide computers, because 500' up on a two mile radius has no visual reference to fly against. Democracy is a great thing, but without goodwill towards others it offers the potential for 51% to inflict pain on 49%. If you want to finish at 500' go ahead - you don't need a rule for it and it costs you only a minute or so. I personally carry 1,000' of extra until I'm 5-7 miles out. While I believe it is 100% well intentioned, I don't think this proposal actually helps and it has some very funky potential side effects. Vote away! 9B At 20:30 20 September 2003, Tom Seim wrote: Andy Blackburn wrote in message news:... I shold have been clearer on this point Eric. If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make it to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb. A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my ship requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might climb even higher if you want any buffer. I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer) and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold altitude. A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6 will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide to the inner part of the donut. The simple point here is that all of this climbing and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This is because the ground forces the issue later with the extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude separation (difference in glide angle times distance) goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal separation goes up with distance as well, the potential for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely increase under the 500' rule. You can make different assumptions about what altitude you might stop and climb, but the difference due to the rules remains the same. I don't see how this is any different; we have to see and avoid other sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the time that we have come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally anywhere on course, including directly over turn points. And even if you don't have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally and high-speed gliders in-bound to finish. I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy function and accept the result. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Tom-
However well intentioned I don't think that most pilots realize what a pandoras box the "safety" issue is. Put bluntly, if the SRA and SSA become focused upon safety issues in this sport it is a death sentence in and of itself and I for one will no longer be racing in contests sanctioned by these organizations. When people become so parental that they "know" what is best for the rest of society they have lost all perspective of what life and freedom are about. Do you mean to tell mean that you honestly think most pilots are incapable of making reasonable judgements? If so I'd say that you are a brave man for even flying within the same area with these renegades. If these rules pass and become the status quo you will be left with a system that is paralyzed by its very existence i.e. there is no perfectly safe way to race a glider. This will split the SSA resulting in no winners. Please think about this before you vote. Casey Lenox KC Phoenix |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport
except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy function and accept the result. Tom, that is like saying that in NASCAR (or F1, or CART, or drag racing) fast laps add nothing to the sport except for some broken cars (and drivers!). WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RACING! I, for one, love the rush of a low, fast finish at the end of a nicely judged 60 mile final glide - that's one of the reasons I race! Is there more risk than just entering the pattern at 800 feet with all the 2-33s? Probably (although my bet is the stats don't support that conclusion). If you feel racing is too dangerous, then by all means don't do it, but please don't ruin if for those of us who like it the way it is - challenging, exciting, beautiful to watch, and yes, a little risky! It used to be simple - CD set a task, and fastest glider around wins. Now, you don't know how far everyone is flying, and going faster doesn't even mean you are going to win - but by God you will do it "safely"! Maybe it's time to set up a separate racing series for those of us who prefer to race than go on organized cross-countries in gaggles - Hell, it shouldn't take too long for us to kill ourselves off with our low finishes and pinpoint turnpoints, then everybody can go back to TATs with 20 mile areas, 15 extra minutes and 1000 ft high speed limited finishes. YAWN Kirk Stant |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Maybe it's time to set up a separate racing series for those of us who prefer to race than go on organized cross-countries in gaggles - Hell, it shouldn't take too long for us to kill ourselves off with our low finishes and pinpoint turnpoints, then everybody can go back to TATs with 20 mile areas, 15 extra minutes and 1000 ft high speed limited finishes. Kirk...you forgot the handwringing and moaning about what they must be forgetting to add to the list of rules re safety.....you know the motto....."you can never be safe enough!". At least they'll have a good model with John Danforth leading the way. Now what was that name we were considering for the new organization?! Casey |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Kirk,
I love reading your posts because we obviously have such different views. Your point about NASCAR is amusing because it is hard to find a more intrusive organization that micromanages their sport. NASCAR is EXTREMELY safety concious that monitors not only the detailed design of the car (when was the last time they actually raced "stock cars"?), but every minute aspect of race operation. If there is a fatality, such as Earnhardt's, they take action to prevent it from happening again: Safety has become a paramount concern this year in NASCAR. Restrictor plates, throttle limiters and soft walls have all been hot topics in an effort to find an answer to a single question, "What else can be done to limit driver injury"? Should NASCAR mandate the HANS® Device? By Frank Ryan October 31, 2000 AutoRacing1.com I don't think that soaring can accomodate this level of governence. After all, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsers and a national TV audience. But to compare our sport to NASCAR on just one aspect presents a distorted picture. I agree that there is nothing to compare with a high-speed contest finish for the adreneline junky. The problem is that most tasks aren't assigned turnpoints, resulting in gliders approaching the finish line from all directions. Consequently you can be mixing slow speed gliders in the pattern (at low altitude) with high-speed finishing gliders. It IS sad to see this part of the sport go (along with the start line) since this is the only spectator part of the contest. Tom |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
They could drive slower, have mandatory car separation and have to use
blinkers to pass. And to make horse racing safer, they could stop putting those little men on the horses backs. But to be really safe, they just shouldn't race! "Tom Seim" wrote in message om... Kirk, I love reading your posts because we obviously have such different views. Your point about NASCAR is amusing because it is hard to find a more intrusive organization that micromanages their sport. NASCAR is EXTREMELY safety concious that monitors not only the detailed design of the car (when was the last time they actually raced "stock cars"?), but every minute aspect of race operation. If there is a fatality, such as Earnhardt's, they take action to prevent it from happening again: Safety has become a paramount concern this year in NASCAR. Restrictor plates, throttle limiters and soft walls have all been hot topics in an effort to find an answer to a single question, "What else can be done to limit driver injury"? Should NASCAR mandate the HANS® Device? By Frank Ryan October 31, 2000 AutoRacing1.com I don't think that soaring can accomodate this level of governence. After all, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsers and a national TV audience. But to compare our sport to NASCAR on just one aspect presents a distorted picture. I agree that there is nothing to compare with a high-speed contest finish for the adreneline junky. The problem is that most tasks aren't assigned turnpoints, resulting in gliders approaching the finish line from all directions. Consequently you can be mixing slow speed gliders in the pattern (at low altitude) with high-speed finishing gliders. It IS sad to see this part of the sport go (along with the start line) since this is the only spectator part of the contest. Tom |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
|
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Andy has it exactly right.
Yesterday, on the last leg of an ASA 150-mile task, I found myself low at the end of the day as thermals died. Just under 10 miles out, I had the last decent strip before flying over hills and unlandable desert. My flight computer said I had 350 feet over a 2-knot glide. Since 500-foot sink in that distance isn't impossible, I decided to land. I was 1,300 feet above the ground and, with luck, could have scraped back. I took the safer option. No finish donut would have had me decide any differently, this was purely a safety issue for me. Those that finished were 500 to 1000 feet above me. Another point is the scoring penalty for landing out. I had managed a quite respectable 70 mph up to that point and would probably have got close to 900 points if I had finished the task. What do I get for landing 9 miles short after completing 94% of the task? Not 94%, that's for sure - more like 30% to 40%. Any economist will tell you that this high rate of taxation for landing out will encourage the risk takers to push on for a better reward. Maybe we should use a carrot and not a stick and look at a scoring system that rewards distance and speed and doesn't punish landouts so severely. This makes more sense to me than messing with tried and tested finish procedures. Mike ASW 20 WA "Andy Blackburn" wrote in message ... It is different Tom. Yes, there are always climbing and cruising sailplanes in the mix. The difference is that the closer you are to the finish the more likely it is that gliders will be converging on each other (horizontally AND vertically) and the more likely it is that the cruising sailplanes will be doing something approaching redline rather than 75-100 knots. The logic for the difference is simple. If you know you can't make it home you are likely to be making outlanding preparations somewhere around 700-1,200 feet - depending on terrain and availability of landable fields. In the 'final glide gone bad' scenario you would come to this decision 5-10 miles out and either find a thermal or land (at least most pilots I know will - unless they're flying over a terrain so benign that it's like one big putting green). At this distance the higher speed traffic is well higher and hasn't started to burn off the extra altitude they are carrying as a buffer. The climbing glider won't likely climb up to them anyway unless it finds a real corker of a thermal (somewhat unlikely under 'low save' circumstances). The reason you don't often find gliders making low saves at less than 5 miles out today is that they've all landed out by then or made it home - put another way not many pilots set up for a landout from 500'. Under the proposed rule you can find yourself at 2.5 miles from home and 700' AGL with not enough altitude for a speed finish, but enough altitude to get home. What would you do in this situation? EXACTLY - you will hunt around the edge of the donut for lift. aHopefully, as you get lower you drift towards the airport to keep the landing option open (not sure if the rule allows for catching a thermal below 500' right over the airport, climbing up to enough height to go out to 2 miles and back above 500'). I suppose we could make a rule that if you EVER get below 500' AGL in a flight you're done, but it would probably only be enforceable in the flatlands of Kansas. So there you are climbing up at 2.5 miles out, trying to get enough altitude to make it to the inside edge of the donut at 500'. Say you'll accept a Mc=2 glide. Well at 2 miles the difference between a Mc=2 glide and a Mc=6 glide is 150'. So all the guys coming steaming home - now at close to redline will be more or less at your altitude. Under the current rules this is unlikely to happen at less than 6 miles out - where the differential altitude margin is three times as great and the speed differentials are somewhat lower. If you want some really interesting and action-packed finishes with a few poor pilots stuck outside the donut - able to glide to the airport but unable to finish for speed points - floating around at low altitude and mixing it up with gliders at redline - all within view of spectators - then this is your best shot. Wait, I forgot the best part! The guys at redline will have their heads in the cockpit, looking at their glide computers, because 500' up on a two mile radius has no visual reference to fly against. Democracy is a great thing, but without goodwill towards others it offers the potential for 51% to inflict pain on 49%. If you want to finish at 500' go ahead - you don't need a rule for it and it costs you only a minute or so. I personally carry 1,000' of extra until I'm 5-7 miles out. While I believe it is 100% well intentioned, I don't think this proposal actually helps and it has some very funky potential side effects. Vote away! 9B At 20:30 20 September 2003, Tom Seim wrote: Andy Blackburn wrote in message news:... I shold have been clearer on this point Eric. If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make it to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb. A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my ship requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might climb even higher if you want any buffer. I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer) and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold altitude. A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6 will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide to the inner part of the donut. The simple point here is that all of this climbing and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This is because the ground forces the issue later with the extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude separation (difference in glide angle times distance) goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal separation goes up with distance as well, the potential for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely increase under the 500' rule. You can make different assumptions about what altitude you might stop and climb, but the difference due to the rules remains the same. I don't see how this is any different; we have to see and avoid other sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the time that we have come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally anywhere on course, including directly over turn points. And even if you don't have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally and high-speed gliders in-bound to finish. I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy function and accept the result. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Can a Private Pilot tow gliders and get paid? | zatatime | Piloting | 3 | October 17th 04 01:35 AM |
FAA has temporarily withdrawn the proposed Sport Pilot rule | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 2 | March 27th 04 06:23 AM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |