Seniors Contest

Kilo Charlie wrote:
You must be aware that a pilot stalled and spun with water at 600'
attempting to get over the circle edge last season. So how is that safer???

Maybe some of us are crazy, but we would rather stall and spin at 600
feet, than 200 feet, with or without water. Of course, my competitive
urges being what they are, if I had any doubts about being able to make
it to a 500 foot 1 mile finish, I'd be either still someplace farther
back, trying to climb higher, or sitting in a convenient field. I don't
want to win badly enough to do stupid things...

Marc

Final line is this Marc...you cannot legislate good judgement....period. If
you don't believe it then just go drive around in your car for awhile where
there have already been put into place many laws in an attempt to do so.

It is not the pilots that are conscientious and cautious that are the
problem....no matter what the rules are they will do the right thing. There
will always be those that are poor decision makers in a pinch. I wish that
an instructor somewhere would have pointed this out to them but now that
they have their license they can demonstrate to the world their
inadequacies.

Casey

I'm not aware of someone "stalling and spinning with water at 600'
attempting to get over the circle edge last season'. Where and when did
this happen? What finish configuration was in use?

I also can't imagine why. Under current US rules, even when there is a
finish circle, and even when the CD announces a substantial minimum
height for the circle, you are allowed to proceed directly to the field
and get a rolling finish for speed points. You might lose the 1 minute
of time between crossing the 1 mile circle and your landing, but that's
better than any thermaling will do for you. So there is not even any
competitive reason to be circling at 600' one mile out with water.

John Cochrane
BB

A rolling finish was a severe penalty. Straight in or just safely
entering on base was out of the question. Buffeting, stalling then
spinning a partially loaded aft CG glider got me a GPS fix in the safer
circle finish. You could say that I didn't climb high enough, but I
climbed as high as I could and left the last thermal at best L/D.

Change the rules any way you like, we'll find some new way to put
ourselves in a world of hurt... ;-)

Change the rules any way you like, we'll find some new way to put
ourselves in a world of hurt... ;-)

g l i d e r s t u d wrote:
A rolling finish was a severe penalty. Straight in or just safely
entering on base was out of the question. Buffeting, stalling then
spinning a partially loaded aft CG glider got me a GPS fix in the
safer
circle finish. You could say that I didn't climb high enough, but I
climbed as high as I could and left the last thermal at best L/D.

So, you consider a low altitude spin, from which you may not recover
(it has been known to happen, you know) less of a penalty than five
minutes added to your time on task? I have dumped the nose and crossed
the field boundary with full flaps and about 70 knots and taken a
rolling finish in the days of the low altitude finishes because I
didn't want to make a low energy pattern. Added time be damned.

"Straight in or a base entry was out of the question"? So, I take it
you landed in a field after this spin, rather than making it home? But
you got those speed points, man! Yep, GliderStud, indeed!

Please identify yourself, as I am not so sure I would like to share a
thermal with you.

Steve Leonard
Zulu Sierra
(Sometimes a Zuni 2, other times a 604)

PS: Also, would you all be so kind as to change the "subject" when you
change the subject? (see above) Thanks!

PPS: Guess what tomorrow is?

This pilot is one that I have and would anyday share a thermal with. He is
an excellent racing pilot and would never put someone else in danger. He
has won more than one contest. To imply that he is some crazy unsafe wacko
is unfortunate. I would not reveal myself if I were him but would say that
I can see getting into the same situation. That IS the point
here.......with the so-called "safe" finish there are times when it is in
fact unsafe! To date I have not felt any safer with a single change that
has been made in the name of safety. I honestly think that from a pure
safety aspect the old start gate and 50' AGL finish line was safer than the
mega-gaggle cylinder starts we have now and the finishes into a circle from
varying angles. I don't argue the point that contest organization is
simpler with the cylinder however.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Kilo Charlie wrote:
Final line is this Marc...you cannot legislate good judgement....period. If
you don't believe it then just go drive around in your car for awhile where
there have already been put into place many laws in an attempt to do so.

It is not the pilots that are conscientious and cautious that are the
problem....no matter what the rules are they will do the right thing. There
will always be those that are poor decision makers in a pinch. I wish that
an instructor somewhere would have pointed this out to them but now that
they have their license they can demonstrate to the world their
inadequacies.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me in the least what sort of finish you use,
if I'm not participating. But, if I am participating, I find finish
gates incredibly unsafe, even if I personally do my more leisurely 1000+
foot finishes. I still have to dodge fast moving gliders as I get
lower, particularly with MATs. But, as soon as someone important
(rather than someone like me) gets killed as the direct result of a
finish gate, I'm sure the rules committee will be all over it...

Marc

Kilo Charlie wrote:
This pilot is one that I have and would anyday share a thermal with.
He is
an excellent racing pilot and would never put someone else in danger.
He
has won more than one contest. To imply that he is some crazy unsafe
wacko
is unfortunate. I would not reveal myself if I were him but would
say that
I can see getting into the same situation. That IS the point
here.......with the so-called "safe" finish there are times when it
is in
fact unsafe! To date I have not felt any safer with a single change
that
has been made in the name of safety. I honestly think that from a
pure
safety aspect the old start gate and 50' AGL finish line was safer
than the
mega-gaggle cylinder starts we have now and the finishes into a
circle from
varying angles. I don't argue the point that contest organization is

simpler with the cylinder however.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Casey and Everyone else,

I agree completely that you simply cannot regulate judgement and
safety. Any rule that is created will have some edge that someone will
end up testing. The pilot being talked about had the option of a
rolling finish, but his competitive drive and the rule made him do
something he would not normally do. I think I know who this pilot is,
and yes, I have also raced with him and had a great time doing so. If
it sounded like I was implying he is a wacko, my apoligies to him.
That was not my intent. I was simply trying (apparently
unsuccessfully) to ask if he now thinks that he excercised good
judgement. Isn't that what this is all about? We have to excercise
good judgement, in spite of the rules. He used his judgement and maybe
let the rule influence his judgement in a not so good direction. End
result: In this case, an interesting story the person who experienced
it can tell.

I, too, hate seeing rules made "in the name of safety". It is one
person's opinion, and the opinon of as many other people that choose to
see it that way as the expressor. I miss the fast, low finishes. I
miss pilotage (heading out into 8 to 10 mile visibility, northbound out
of Monahans towards Seagraves, with no GPS or compass, with the first
road to be found about 25 miles out, according to the sectional). I
miss standing my 604 on its tip from over 10K AGL to try and photograph
only half of a half mile long runway. I am not at all fond of running
around at ever increasing speed near the top corner of a start cylinder
or at cloudbase because the top of the cylinder is above cloudbase.
All these things get the heart going and we must use our judgement as
to what we are willing to do.

Would we maybe be less unhappy with a rule if it wasn't put to us as
being a "safety improvement" but just "this is the way it is going to
be."?

Please, Casey, Don't Adjust my Meds! I really am a good guy!

Steve Leonard
ZS
Wichita, KS