Hard Deck

Time to change the subject line?

I have been thinking about the hard deck idea. Possibly fine in flat land
soaring but I am not sure it adds much when ridge flying.

I perceive another problem: Turbos are even more dangerous near the ground
than pure gliders. I may be happy in my 27 at 500ft but in a turbo?

Setting a 1000ft deck because that is safer for turbos will take away the
advantage that real gliders have in this zone. Many pure pilots would say
this advantage goes some of the way to make up for the additional
opportunities turbo pilots have in competition.

Setting a turbo deck for everyone will force everyone to go to the dark
side!

Jim

As ex CFIG, how low do you want to recover from a stall/spin?
For me higher the better......

Based on that statement, you should probably avoid landing, and always stay
above 1000ft agl or simply not take off!

At 19:42 26 January 2018, Charlie M. UH & 002 owner/pilot wrote:
As ex CFIG, how low do you want to recover from a stall/spin?
For me higher the better......

I'm opposing any hard-deck rule. I have been competing with mixed results in gliders since 1996 and I started a CD "career" 4 years ago.
Under a hard deck rule, a pilot who finds himself low will struggle to judge whether he's going to reach a promising hot spot while still on a valid score. He may have to divert to a less than ideal and maybe more uncertain thermal source (lots to complain after the flight).

If in any case he will break through the hard deck, he'll be delusional. That won't stop him from trying to avoid the inconvenience of the retrieve. If he manages to climb out, more he will have reasons to complain against the rule.

On the other hand, I'm totally in favour of the remote finish, high finish gate or finish ring. There are negative factors as well (less lookout and more instrument focus, slow and erratic flying close to the finush), but the balance is in my opinion largely in favour of the high finish line.

Aldo Cernezzi

Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.

Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next..

Change of pace........

Another contest site example.......

Dansville, NY, returning from the SE, look up Avoca as an airport in the valley heading towards Dansville.
Local conventional wisdom is, "if you're coming up the valley and clear the valley by a few hundred feet, you have the airport made".
The valley drops off enough so a 35:1 or better glider can follow the slope, clear the town, make the airport.
In the "olden days", this was fine.
With newer current minimum finish heights, you need a bit more over the valley crest to not bust minimums at the finish line.

Granted, if there is much of any NW wind, the right side of the dropoff may put you on the backside of the ridge on the way to town.
Trust me, it's not fun in that case.

There is the front lawn of a hospital just before town, totally landable if you are sorta sharp, been there twice. Pass the lawn, it gets real ugly until over the airport fence, this why I landed on the lawn twice maybe 3/4 mile from the airport.

The new minimum numbers would likely land quite a few doing that route that can be safe, but low.

Another return is from the south/SSW from Hornel, you can fall off a higher valley floor, run through small gorges with fields all over on the way to the airport. Great landing sites (better than going over the town......) but still likely to bust suggested minimums.

I am not aware of any broken gliders in either case over the years.
I am not for or against the proposed suggested rules change.
Just pointing out some "flatlander" situations that may be impacted by a "minimum valley clearance height".

Not trying to argue or defend myself, just adding specific info to the discussion.

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.

Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next.

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:51:00 AM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.

Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next.

Change of pace........

Another contest site example.......

Dansville, NY, returning from the SE, look up Avoca as an airport in the valley heading towards Dansville.
Local conventional wisdom is, "if you're coming up the valley and clear the valley by a few hundred feet, you have the airport made".
The valley drops off enough so a 35:1 or better glider can follow the slope, clear the town, make the airport.
In the "olden days", this was fine.
With newer current minimum finish heights, you need a bit more over the valley crest to not bust minimums at the finish line.

Granted, if there is much of any NW wind, the right side of the dropoff may put you on the backside of the ridge on the way to town.
Trust me, it's not fun in that case.

There is the front lawn of a hospital just before town, totally landable if you are sorta sharp, been there twice. Pass the lawn, it gets real ugly until over the airport fence, this why I landed on the lawn twice maybe 3/4 mile from the airport.

The new minimum numbers would likely land quite a few doing that route that can be safe, but low.

Another return is from the south/SSW from Hornel, you can fall off a higher valley floor, run through small gorges with fields all over on the way to the airport. Great landing sites (better than going over the town......) but still likely to bust suggested minimums.

I am not aware of any broken gliders in either case over the years.
I am not for or against the proposed suggested rules change.
Just pointing out some "flatlander" situations that may be impacted by a "minimum valley clearance height".

Not trying to argue or defend myself, just adding specific info to the discussion.

Charlie, There are two points I would make: By my proposal, if there is an out to lower ground (300 ft lower), then that is not a violation. Second, by my proposal, the CD always has discretion. To the extent that this is a standard safe route, as you describe it, your CD would not penalize you for unsafe flying.

I should also add, if this is a ridge flying scenario, you probably aren't stopping to turn. So by my protocol, there is not a problem flying through that area or even landing at the hospital unless you were doing a thermalling turn below 300 ft.

Tanks for the reply.

As stated, not trying to justify, just stating a possible case where a blanket hard deck could do unintentional landouts.

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:36:35 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002
Another contest site example.......

Hey Charlie: The finish cylinder minimum for 2018 is now 800 over the airport / 1 mi. It's been at least 500 / 1 mi for a decade. What was exciting for you was too exciting for organizers (heavily influenced by others that weren't able to offset bad judgement with good luck).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Golly, I thought at the 2017 18 meter nationals, they had a 50 ft finish line?

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:36:35 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002
Another contest site example.......

Hey Charlie: The finish cylinder minimum for 2018 is now 800 over the airport / 1 mi. It's been at least 500 / 1 mi for a decade. What was exciting for you was too exciting for organizers (heavily influenced by others that weren't able to offset bad judgement with good luck).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8