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
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis observed pretty much what I did at Hobbs - finishing at a set height
away from the normal finish gate puts more workload on pilots during the final glide. In most contests, you can see the finish gate and judge your approach accordingly. For a "virtual" donut gate, you are relying on instruments. Then, after the finish, you are avoiding all the other classes whistling in at red line while descending from your now excessive finish height. Again, I'm not going to argue against a specific finish height, but finishing 2 miles or more away from the normal finish gate is more difficult in my experience and doesn't add safety, which was the stated goal. And my final point - most flight computers won't give you a glide to the outside of a cylinder, so you are relying on doing math in your head on the last few miles home. I can do final glide math in my head, than you very much, but it's harder than following your flight computer. I fail to see how extra work load is increasing safety. Mike ASW 20 WA "dennis brown" wrote in message ink.net... Safer, in theory, seems to be the proper phrase. We had this for one day at Hobbs regionals this year and 1000 ft min. for the rest of the contest (sports class). Theory is right. The practical aspect is that I spent more heads down time looking at my distance versus altitude as I got inside the last 10 miles or so of the finish cylinder. When we had a finish gate, we knew where it was, we could see it. No heads down. We could still finish well above worm disruption altitude. I see no benefit in the lowest finishes. Anything lower than a hundred or so feet has no redeeming virtue. Another anti-safety aspect is that finishing at 1000 ft at 2 miles from the field means that you spend considerable time in the immediate vincinity of the pattern slowing down and descending. More time means more exposure. There is an optimum here. Too little time is bad - no options. Too much time is bad - too much exposure to other lawn darts. The last part is that there really needs to be a final aligning point, regardless of the task called. Not all the classes should have the same final turn, but all should be within a relatively small (45 degrees?) angle from the field, located so as to put the glider into a downwind leg with minimal manuvering. I think the finish cylinder is an unexpected (to me, anyway) FAILURE in capital letters. Dennis In article 7YO9b.481795$uu5.83242@sccrnsc04, "Paul Remde" wrote: Hi, This discussion is very interesting. I applaud John for his efforts to make sailplane racing safer. I agree with the theory that if we just move the playing field up 500 feet, it will dramatically improve safety. It is my impression that is what he is trying to do. Why is that so bad? I also agree that I'd prefer to have fewer rules, but in this case I must lean toward safety over simplicity. I must admit that I am a pilot with 2 young children and I will vote for anything that will allow me to continue to fly contests with less reason to worry that I'll leave my kids without a father or my wife without her husband. I must also admit that I am a relatively inexperienced contest pilot - having flown in only 4 contests. Fly Safe, Paul Remde "Andy Blackburn" wrote in message ... I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap it and at what level of competition. If the intent is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical, empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track the bigger objectives. 9B At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote: We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle doesn't pay much attention to rules anyway. John Cochrane wrote: Fellow US pilots: This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article 'Safer Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....ch/Papers/#For _glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from 'pilot judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points' from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Somehow, John, I feel that your posting should have ended with the word
"vote". Perhaps a member of the rules committee should not be 'campaigning' to shame/scare us into our "opinions". Personally, I think the 15minute rule, and this rule, are unnecessary complications to an already overly -complicated sport. It takes a season of flying just to get used to the new rules! And then next year, guess what? New rules! John Bojack "J4" This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says "stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field." But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article "Safer Finishes" in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....rs/#For_glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from "pilot judgment" decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove "but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points" from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
I need to think about the proposed new rule for a while. Then I
will decide how to vote. I applaud John Cochrane's efforts to improve the US contest rules. I admire his willingness to invite discussion in this forum. What I don't admire is: 1. Attacking John personally. 2. Complaining about other rules. 3. Complaining about the number of rules. 4. Brainless macho. Let's stick to the issues. If your goal is persuasion, address the points of the other guy's argument. If your goal is to be annoying, don't change a thing. "Ninety-eight percent of the posters in this group give the rest a bad name." - Stephen Wright (originally about lawyers). -Pat |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
John,
I admire your commitment to safety, and before GPS I would have objected strenously to the doughnut. But with modern navigational aids, I no longer need the outward spiral of white crosses marking the demise of so many miscalculated final glides to point the way home. Indeed, perhaps we can finally dispose of their remains and their memories. People around the gliderport were beginning to take notice that we run an unsafe operation. BTW, I question the rhetorical impact of "life and death decisions" for 400 points. I would suggest that those 400 points are an incentive to take a few extra turns before you light the reheat. As for landing close to the airport, some of us scout the fields before we start competing, just like some road racers like to walk the track before they strap on 600 horsepower. Alas, a doughnut at the end of a flight may be just what I need. Yet another rule up the wazoo. I'm starting to wince as I sit down for my postfligh brew. As a side not, remember all, that a poll, while it measures the opinions of its respondents, asks only the questions its authors want answered. Measure its objectivity by how well it addresses what you think is important. I don't expect to see a question asking if we should abolish the rules committee and only establish an ad hoc commmittee in the event that we have a clear, compelling reason to change the rules. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Someone, please enlighten me!
What is the difference between a 2+30 task call plus 15 min, and a 2+45 task call? I understand that it is scoring suicide to arrive early in either case, and that, given consistent flying conditions, it is best to arrive 'on time'. So why not just call a 2+45 task? Or call a 2+30 task if that is what the day warrants. I do like the finish ring idea if there is a 'lead-in' sector for mixed tasks (i.e. --assigned task for 15 m and MAT for Sports). gives time for an orderly procession of landings at the airport. I think the high speed finish is spectacular and fun, but I am more afraid of a 'last-second' landout then a loss of a few points. Hartley Falbaum "Tim Hanke" wrote in message m... (John Cochrane) wrote in message . com... Fellow US pilots: This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. John Cochrane (BB) Why are we constantly adding more rules to competition flying? It is becoming more and more complicated. We cannot just add more and more rules to deal with people's decision making all the time. Soaring is a sport that requires decision-making and that is one of the big challenges to the sport. I am opposed to more and more rules that continue to add to the complexity of the sport. Tim Hanke Libelle 201B "H1" Saratoga Springs, New York |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why are we constantly adding more rules to competition flying? It is
becoming more and more complicated. We cannot just add more and more rules to deal with people's decision making all the time. Soaring is a sport that requires decision-making and that is one of the big challenges to the sport. I am opposed to more and more rules that continue to add to the complexity of the sport. Tim Hanke Libelle 201B "H1" Saratoga Springs, New York Tim, you have said it all. Moffett said that you need to make a decision every fifteen seconds, and that was without computers. Those were flight decisions, now we must make a decision every fifteen seconds and spend the other fourteen programming our flight computers. Bruce Patton 96S |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry John, I don't like it. It is my job as the pilot in command to
not jeopardize my safety or the safety of people and things on the ground (or in the air, for that matter). Just because I'm final gliding in a race does not excuse me from that responsibility. And anyone who doesn't fly that way is going to ignore any "safety" rule, anyway. I can just see the stall/spin accidents at the finish line/cylinder/gate as Joe Bagadonuts in his still-fully-ballasted (forgot to dump, of course) DGLSASW-69 desperately pulls up to get over the 500' penalty wall, and finds out what it looks like to be pointing straight down at 400 ft and 40 knots. Yee Haa - that'll have em cheering in the cheap seats! As an individual, if you are convinced by John's arguments, then by all means use his guidelines for finishing - it probably won't hurt your score one little bit, and might even help. But a rule is not the answer to stupidity. BTW, a Garmin GPS 3 Pilot can be setup to take you to exactly 501 ft 1 mile from the finish, or whatever point in space you want, around multiple turnpoints - with an "ILS glideslipe" display to guide you all the way. Do you really want to be staring at a display at that point in the flight? Not me! Lets go back to long and relatively low start gates, small turn cylinders, and geographically significant finish gates. In an AST, of course. Kirk Stant 66 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, this rule may address one senario, but may create another one that
is just as bad or worse. Let say I am 3 miles out a 700 feet in calm air. Since where i fly we have a 2 mile long runway and the finish cyilnder is typically centered on the center of the runway the end of the runway is only 2 miles away. However I just miss the 500 foot finish at 2 miles out (or am not sure if I hit it) At that point I hit a weak thermal (Which can happen quite often at low altitudes) I am only 400 ft, but if I can work this thermal to gain only 100 feet it is worth the 400 point differnence between being scored only distance as opposed to speed. (that is if I understand the rules correctly) Now you have a glider thermalling between 400-600 feet AGL with other gliders finishing at the 500ft level. I think this is a much more enticing carrot for the competitive pilot than trying to decide wheather or not to land in a field 2 miles short of the finish. In my senero the choice is thermal at low altitude and risk a mid air with other finishing gliders which most experinced pilots might be willing to try espeically for just 100 or 50 ft gain of altitude. In the original senerio the risk is if I don't make the airport, I may damage an aircraft landing short and be out of the contest all together as well as for the rest of the season. I think the current rules are acutally safer than the propose rule for this reason, as the consequences of a bad decision are much worse. Brian Case CFIIG/ASEL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |