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
|
|||
|
|||
Turnpoint Database's Need Overhaul
It's beginning to seem like common practice to have multiple accidents
at glider contests these days. I really hate to see accidents get hushed up, nothing mentioned on the contest report, except for a simple "W" and "F" next to the persons score. We can all learn from these accidents, why hide them? Why not make changes to avoid these from recurring. Anyone who flies contests knows they aren't immune from accidents. After reading the debate between 80 miles of unlandable terrain at Logan, I looked over the turnpoint list on google earth. I noticed there are large number of turnpoints that are Mountain Peaks. Years ago when camera's were required to take a picture of an easily identifiable turnpiont, a Mountain Peak might have been a good turnpoint. But now in the age of GPS's, we don't so much need an easily identifiable turnpoint. Especially when we are flying into a big turn cylinder. And besides, nobody needs glide navigation information into the top of a mountain. A contest I flew in a few years ago, had a river as a turnpoint. A local pilot showed me on google earth a perfect field two miles away from the river. Why not have this perfect field as a turnpoint? Wouldn't it be nicer to have distance, direction and glide navigation information into this perfect field rather than the river? Another task I flew had no turnpoints listed between the final turn point and the finish cylinder which was 18 miles. There was no obvious places to land, except for one hidden grass runway that was kept mowed. I landedat this hidden grass runway in a Piper Cub a couple days later. Why wasn't this listed into the turnpoint database? I know that the contest committee reads this and it would sure be great if there could be a push for revamping the turnpoint database to include excellent places to land and remove turnpoints that don't help you when you get low. I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. Why don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety??? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Turnpoint Database's Need Overhaul
On 8/6/11 11:23 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
I noticed there are large number of turnpoints that are Mountain Peaks. Years ago when camera's were required to take a picture of an easily identifiable turnpiont, a Mountain Peak might have been a good turnpoint. Actually, a mountain peak is *NOT* a good photo turn. It used to be that we had to leave the good soaring on the mountains to go out into the valley and take a photo of an airport. Then, since the lift in the valley wasn't good, we would land at that airport... :-) Most contests today do a lot of turn areas, so we have very large circles around the turns, so perhaps using a landable place would be good, except when flying an assigned task. The real problem with identifying questionable landing spots in a database is that pilots will follow the computer at max L/D could be in for a rude surprise when on short final. For the Tonopah contest, they did create a database of dry lakes and dirt roads, which did make it a little more comfortable. Out there it *really* is possible to have absolutely noting 'safe' to land on for 50km or more. With the possibility of gliding more than 100km before needing to look for a place to land, it's nice to know that what looks like a possible landing place from 100km out, it might actually be 'safe'. -Tom |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Turnpoint Database's Need Overhaul
On Aug 6, 11:23*am, Scott Alexander
wrote: I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. *Why don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety??? There is no requirement for a turnpoint to be landable. There is no requirement for a turnpoint database to include any landable sites. It would be nice, however, if contest organizers provided a separate landables database, particularly when holding a contest at a site where no one except locals knows where the landables are. The problem with a "landables" database is that it needs to be maintained. A strip that was landable 5 years ago may be full of motor homes and off road vehicles on the day you need it. Local knowledge is a huge advantage at any contest site and particularly at a new site. Nothing is going to change that. Andy |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Turnpoint Database's Need Overhaul
On 8/13/2011 5:59 PM, Andy wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:23 am, Scott wrote: I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. Why don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety??? There is no requirement for a turnpoint to be landable. There is no requirement for a turnpoint database to include any landable sites. It would be nice, however, if contest organizers provided a separate landables database, particularly when holding a contest at a site where no one except locals knows where the landables are. It seems likely to me that Scott meant "waypoints" when he said "turnpoints", and was promoting landable waypoints be included in the waypoint database, not that all turnpoints actually be landable. "Waypoint" and "turnpoint" are often used interchangeably, but that's a real mistake when talking about contests. The problem with a "landables" database is that it needs to be maintained. A strip that was landable 5 years ago may be full of motor homes and off road vehicles on the day you need it. Local knowledge is a huge advantage at any contest site and particularly at a new site. I'll quibble with this: local knowledge is usually much less valuable at flat land sites than in mountain sites or ridge sites. Nothing is going to change that. In the past, something did change that in a remarkable way: GPS receivers. They made navigating so easy, it was no longer a factor in contest flying. That kind of change is still possible. Google Earth lets you "fly" a contest area; Michael Reid's use of Google maps to document landing areas and lift sources could substantially reduce the effect of local knowledge, but not many sites have been documented. Condor and other simulators have the potential to train pilots to fly well at a new site, and I think that will be SOP for contest pilots in less than 5 years. Am I right, Frank? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Turnpoint Database's Need Overhaul
On Aug 13, 4:51*pm, Tom Serkowski wrote:
On 8/6/11 11:23 AM, Scott Alexander wrote: I noticed there are large number of turnpoints that are Mountain Peaks. *Years ago when camera's were required to take a picture of an easily identifiable turnpiont, a Mountain Peak might have been a good turnpoint. Actually, a mountain peak is *NOT* a good photo turn. *It used to be that we had to leave the good soaring on the mountains to go out into the valley and take a photo of an airport. *Then, since the lift in the valley wasn't good, we would land at that airport... *:-) Most contests today do a lot of turn areas, so we have very large circles around the turns, so perhaps using a landable place would be good, except when flying an assigned task. The real problem with identifying questionable landing spots in a database is that pilots will follow the computer at max L/D could be in for a rude surprise when on short final. For the Tonopah contest, they did create a database of dry lakes and dirt roads, which did make it a little more comfortable. *Out there it *really* is possible to have absolutely noting 'safe' to land on for 50km or more. *With the possibility of gliding more than 100km before needing to look for a place to land, it's nice to know that what looks like a possible landing place from 100km out, it might actually be 'safe'.. -Tom Mountain peak waypoints at Logan were a great idea. They often marked the ends of "ridges" which made task planning and navigation easy. And if you are trying to transition to a ridge, where ridge lift may not work much below the top, or if you're approaching from the "wrong" side, how lovely that your glide computer automatically gives you a glide solution to the crucial ridge top. John Cochrane |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Turnpoint Database's Need Overhaul
On Aug 13, 9:59*pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 8/13/2011 5:59 PM, Andy wrote: On Aug 6, 11:23 am, Scott wrote: I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. *Why don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety??? There is no requirement for a turnpoint to be landable. *There is no requirement for a turnpoint database to include any landable sites. It would be nice, however, if contest organizers provided a separate landables database, particularly when holding a contest at a site where no one except locals knows where the landables are. It seems likely to me that Scott meant "waypoints" when he said "turnpoints", and was promoting landable waypoints be included in the waypoint database, not that all turnpoints actually be landable. "Waypoint" and "turnpoint" are often used interchangeably, but that's a real mistake when talking about contests. The problem with a "landables" database is that it needs to be maintained. *A strip that was landable 5 years ago may be full of motor homes and off road vehicles on the day you need it. Local knowledge is a huge advantage at any contest site and particularly at a new site. I'll quibble with this: local knowledge is usually much less valuable at flat land sites than in mountain sites or ridge sites. Nothing is going to change that. In the past, something did change that in a remarkable way: GPS receivers. They made navigating so easy, it was no longer a factor in contest flying. That kind of change is still possible. Google Earth lets you "fly" a contest area; Michael Reid's use of Google maps to document landing areas and lift sources could substantially reduce the effect of local knowledge, but not many sites have been documented. Condor and other simulators have the potential to train pilots to fly well at a new site, and I think that will be SOP for contest pilots in less than 5 years. Am I right, Frank? -- Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to email me) Eric, Yes, you are right. Condor's list of landscapes (aka Sceneries) is growing every day, and now already covers Parowan, Logan, and Uvalde, just to name a few. If I were a pilot planning to attend the 2012 WGC at Uvalde, I'd be flying previous years' contest tasks in the Uvalde task area over the winter. I flew about 20-30 hours in the Logan terrain before going there, and it helped a LOT. Regarding the use of landable fields/airports for contest databases, we overhauled the CCSC database about 5 years ago to do just that, However, as someone else pointed out, at least one of our landable airports was abandoned a couple of years after the overhaul, and is no longer landable. TA |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
To overhaul or not to Overhaul, that is the question- | EridanMan | Owning | 19 | May 12th 06 11:58 PM |
Turnpoint database | [email protected] | Soaring | 6 | November 11th 05 11:11 PM |
Turnpoint conversion SW? | For Example John Smith | Soaring | 11 | March 23rd 05 06:56 PM |
Turnpoint descriptions | Tuno | Soaring | 5 | June 27th 04 02:41 PM |
FAI turnpoint Question | Mark Grubb | Soaring | 13 | February 15th 04 02:31 AM |