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

Hard Deck



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #281  
Old February 9th 18, 11:53 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 386
Default Hard Deck

Woke up this morning and for the first time in weeks (months?), there were NO NEW "HARD DECK" POSTS. It couldn't last. And didn't. But we're close, I think, now that we all agree.

Chip Bearden
Ads
  #282  
Old February 10th 18, 12:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 879
Default Hard Deck

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:57:46 AM UTC-8, BobW wrote:
What am I missing? Are (arguably,
often-casually read/absorbed/understood by non-podium-contenders) contest
rules *seriously* considered a more powerful influence on pilot behavior than
the obvious, immediate, economic-/health-risks "imminently-possible downsides"
associated with every off-field landing?


If you've not seen participants taking substantially higher risks in competition than they otherwise would, you haven't been to many competitions. Including but not limited to soaring competitions. As a pop metric, the Google search "taking risk in sports competition" returns 106 million results including countless academic papers studying the subject. That's one the the major reasons there are rules in competitions.

And - one more time - the rules may not have any effect on some competitors, but it prevents everyone else from having to do the same thing to be competitive. The argument that the individual pilot is solely responsible for their own safety was lost when parachutes were required, and the presence or lack of one has no possibility of affecting others scores or behavior.
  #283  
Old February 10th 18, 12:50 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 879
Default Hard Deck

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:17:54 AM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:03:13 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:31:25 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.


My typo - I meant return to Truckee.

You could have the finish at 10,000' MSL & 15 miles which is ~35:1 to the edge of the normal finish cylinder. Sort of a permanent safety finish.

9B


Yes, that's how I was thinking of it -- a permanent safety finish. Set the diameter and height such that it is not essential to return to Truckee valley for a finish yet will not make it significantly more difficult to complete a return to the cool pines if you don't have a motor. We could even set the finish ring all the out to the Pinenuts. That would be odd and unusual. But odd and unusual isn't a reason not to do it when it solves two big problems.


Yeah, that would do it. The last 15 miles are pretty much skill free anyway, so not measuring much except the performance of your glider.
  #284  
Old February 10th 18, 03:17 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 406
Default Hard Deck

What am I missing? Are (arguably, often-casually
read/absorbed/understood by non-podium-contenders) contest rules
*seriously* considered a more powerful influence on pilot behavior than
the obvious, immediate, economic-/health-risks "imminently-possible
downsides" associated with every off-field landing?


If you've not seen participants taking substantially higher risks in
competition than they otherwise would, you haven't been to many
competitions.


Man - while this may be an exercise in intellectually punching an infinitely
large pillow, the above response completely misses (ignores?) the point I was
seeking to make. I don't dispute the validity of accepting "higher risk in
competition" attitude as being a real thing. I simply am wondering if it is
being *seriously* argued that the simultaneously-at-issue (to Joe Competition
pilot) potential life-altering/-ending stakes associated with bozo OFL-related
decision-making are likely to be in any way brought *more* to his attention by
the presence of such a truly arcane rule than the physically omni-present and
unignorable facts of OFL life. I, for one, doubt it would, but if the
"Contestistas" want to find out, have at it!
- - - - - -

And - one more time - the rules may not have any effect on some
competitors, but it prevents everyone else from having to do the same
thing to be competitive.


Say what? I thought this canard had already been thoroughly debunked
up-thread, by more than one competition-experienced pilot. Maybe I missed it,
so feel free to tell me again how many "western U.S. competitions" have been
won due to the presence of those weak-but-sufficiently-consistent contest days
that were won by someone actually taking advantage of "below-proposed hard
deck" rules.
- - - - - -

The argument that the individual pilot is solely responsible for their own
safety was lost when parachutes were required, and the presence or lack of
one has no possibility of affecting others scores or behavior.


Equating mandated parachutes to a mandated hard deck seems a truly
torturous/"stretching" analogy to me, but in any event I wasn't aware I made
any such "parallel claim" (or argument or even vague suggestion) along that
line. I simply don't think the proposed rule will have any actual effect on
your western U.S. contest placings. I'll be leaving this thread now; my
pillow-punching demons have been exorcised.


Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #285  
Old February 14th 18, 06:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 474
Default Hard Deck

Another reason for a hard deck - leaping elk.

http://www.wral.com/leaping-elk-cras...pter/17336678/

Andy Blackburn
9B
  #286  
Old February 17th 18, 05:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Bojack J4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Hard Deck

Amen, Rick. Great sensible words.
 




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
The Melting Deck Plates Muddle - V-22 on LHD deck.... Mike Naval Aviation 79 December 14th 09 06:00 PM
hard wax application Tuno Soaring 20 April 24th 08 03:04 PM
winter is hard. Bruce Greef Soaring 2 July 3rd 06 06:31 AM
It ain't that hard Gregg Ballou Soaring 8 March 23rd 05 01:18 AM
Who says flying is hard? Roger Long Piloting 9 November 1st 04 08:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:35 AM.


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