A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Reducing collision hazard at contests



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old May 15th 18, 03:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dave Springford
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 251
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

To reduce gaggling and aggressive flying in contests, prohibit the use of parachutes. Would this change pilot behaviour, discuss ...
Ads
  #12  
Old May 15th 18, 03:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 52
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

Oh yes Dave it would change pilot behaviour. Nobody would turn up for the competition. That will certainly eliminate any chance of collision.

Clinton
  #13  
Old May 15th 18, 05:56 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
2G
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 495
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
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.


That's called a gaggle. You might as well penalize all the pilots before they launch.

Tom
  #14  
Old May 15th 18, 06:25 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 390
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 9:56:41 PM UTC-7, 2G wrote:
On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 1:08:49 PM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
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.


That's called a gaggle. You might as well penalize all the pilots before they launch.

Tom


2G: I don't understand what you are trying to say. Yes, my expectation is that most everybody would probably end up getting at least a few penalty points each day despite trying to avoid flying too close to others. This would not usually
affect results in a significant way -- just a little dither of a few points that would be a function of how attentive you are to the issue.
Steve
  #15  
Old May 15th 18, 07:46 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

Contest have been won by 1 point.

P9
  #16  
Old May 15th 18, 08:08 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jim White[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 253
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

IGC document is an interesting read. Didn't see any reference to
calibration of barometric logger heights. The study used a vertical
encounter threshold of 15M. Most loggers are out by at least this much.

Jim

  #17  
Old May 15th 18, 09:01 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 506
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

Duh - skipped right over the horizontal/vertical bit.

I thought about it a bit more.

I could imagine a tactic emerging where teammates further down the scoresheet would hug the closest competitor to their leading teammate to penalize him/her out of contention in the last day or two of a competition. You'd need additional rules to try to judge who's "fault" each penalty is. That might be possible - for instance, penalizing "new" entrants to a thermal. But that might lead to crazy dives to get to the next thermal ahead of the nest competitor(s) and establish a primary position.

Also imagine a couple of gliders in a thermal at the same altitude cracking their airbrakes to block the way of gliders below to let a teammate above get ahead of the group. Yes, it's not very sporting, but certainly unsportsmanlike tactics have been tried. Might need some rules for that to...or maybe people wouldn't try it.

You also wouldn't want people performing crazy maneuvers to clear a conflict without being forced to leave the thermal entirely - zooms, dives, trying to carve across the middle of the thermal to get to the opposite side.

Lastly, people might quibble about not being able to judge these distances very accurately in circumstances where being able to just squeeze in might be important. Would flight computers tell you when you are being penalized? Which flight computers? Software is tough to mandate.

Just noodling.

Andy


On Monday, May 14, 2018 at 6:32:52 PM UTC-5, Steve Koerner wrote:
Andy: Look again at my third paragraph. I did suggest that vertical separation would be different from horizontal. Regardless, I'm not right now picking parameters for this. I just threw out some numbers to make the idea understandable.

  #18  
Old May 15th 18, 11:36 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

"Once upon a time", the rule was "start time = release time". I don't remember hearing much complaints about leeching or gaggles in those times... Only about fairness ;-)
  #19  
Old May 15th 18, 12:28 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Daly[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 488
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

On Tuesday, May 15, 2018 at 3:15:06 AM UTC-4, Jim White wrote:
IGC document is an interesting read. Didn't see any reference to
calibration of barometric logger heights. The study used a vertical
encounter threshold of 15M. Most loggers are out by at least this much.

Jim


They talk about that in para 6.4:
"Other enhancements could include:
- Making use of GNSS estimated position error. Note that for vehicles close to each other, they are likely to have similar satellite visibility, subject to similar atmospheric effects, and therefore have similar position error — meaning that their relative separation erroris likely to be smaller than the position error magnitude.
- Making use of expected barometric error due to pressure sensor calibration drift and position error (variation due to cockpit interior static pressure)."

  #20  
Old May 15th 18, 01:20 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 628
Default Reducing collision hazard at contests

Good rules have the property that it is easy to tell when you are in compliance (or not). Rules of the sort that Steve proposes are troublesome in this regard.

"Oh, but the penalty is small". Yuk. I followed FS through the finish cylinder at Perry, close enough to tell that we were at the same altitude +/- 3 feet. We were lower than we wanted to be having got crushed in the last 3 miles. He finished penalty free, I got docked 20 points (80 feet low). At least I didn't lose 40% of my speed points while still 850' in the air. The gizmos are not as accurate as some presume.

What happens if my flarm fails? DQ for the day? That's going to lead to unhappiness. There were some pretty well known, safety conscious guys flying at Perry that were having flarm problems.

Skeptically,
Evan Ludeman / T8
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Reducing PPG Concept Urethane [email protected] Soaring 23 January 28th 16 10:33 AM
Reducing canopy glare caused by instrument face reflections. [email protected] Soaring 1 November 11th 13 10:22 PM
Reducing Fuel use and Increasing your car speed with FFI MPG-CAPS sexy girl Piloting 0 February 23rd 08 06:47 AM
Mexico hazard Rich S. Home Built 4 January 9th 06 11:42 PM
Reducing the Accident Rate Snowbird Piloting 92 July 22nd 04 01:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:17 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.