Dehydration

There is a tendency for us to put dehydration into an all or nothing
category. We say things like, "Yeah, he was dehydrated and crashed,
remember to drink more water, next time". Dehydration comes in degrees
from slightly dehydrated, all the way up to loss of consciousness. By
the 10th day of a Nationals, we are all tired, many of us are
frustrated, discouraged and I wouldn't be surprised if we weren't all a
little dehydrated. A pilot that is slightly dehydrated is functioning
pretty well, he just isn't at the top of his form, isn't making real
good decisions, doesn't pick up on things right away. A mildly
dehydrated pilot is a pilot headed for trouble, he may be losing his
situational awareness, doesn't foresee problems, can't make split
second decisions. Many land-outs can be attributed to poor decisions as
to where to find that saving thermal, dehydrated?

So, what is the best way to recover 50 tired, frustrated, possibly
dehydrated pilots? Do we ask them to make the split second decisions
necessary to do the hi-speed, low altitude finish, OR do we allow them
to finish the race at 500 feet and a mile out? I would suggest the
later is clearly the safest way to conduct our races.
Managers and CD's; There IS a safer way.
JJ Sinclair

A man on a *serious* safety crusade should make *serious* arguments!
But here's an answer to the laughable argument raised by this thread:

Thanks for suggesting still more unintended hazards of the dreaded
finish cylinder!!! (You're up Chris.)

When it comes to safe landings by pilots in a compromised mental state,
who, unfortunately, are likely to shut down even more mental systems
immediately after finishing, which maneuver has a better chance of
completion on autopilot: a routine, adrenaline enhanced, 90 second
follow the leader hop from low pass to landing? Or a ten minute game
of blind man's bluff after a cylinder pullup to 1500 ft?

Should we cancel just day 10 or does safety demand even shorter
contests to address the dehydration issue?

Should we decide which day to close the gate and open the cylinder
based on daily pilot weigh ins?

After a cylinder finish for points, low passes for show are safe,
right? It's only those low passes for points that cause trouble.

Jonathan Gere

wrote:

snip

So, what is the best way to recover 50 tired, frustrated, possibly
dehydrated pilots? Do we ask them to make the split second decisions
necessary to do the hi-speed, low altitude finish, OR do we allow
them
to finish the race at 500 feet and a mile out? I would suggest the
later is clearly the safest way to conduct our races.
Managers and CD's; There IS a safer way.
JJ Sinclair

Smile.

OC

There's water in beer, right?

wrote:
A man on a *serious* safety crusade should make *serious* arguments!
But here's an answer to the laughable argument raised by this thread:

I have given you 3 accidents where dehydration was a factor. I doubt
these pilots think dehidration is laughable.


Thanks for suggesting still more unintended hazards of the dreaded
finish cylinder!!! (You're up Chris.)

I think you mean the dreaded finish line, don't you? I'm advocating the
dreaded finish cylinder.


When it comes to safe landings by pilots in a compromised mental
state,
who, unfortunately, are likely to shut down even more mental systems
immediately after finishing, which maneuver has a better chance of
completion on autopilot: a routine, adrenaline enhanced, 90 second
follow the leader hop from low pass to landing?

I have given you a doctors opinion (NT) that the pull-up may be enough
to shut down the dehydrated mind. So, I think we can avoid the
shut-down mind situation by using the finish cylinder where a pull-up
isn't required.

Or a ten minute game
of blind man's bluff after a cylinder pullup to 1500 ft?

Pull-up is not necessary at the finish cylinder, so why do it?


Should we cancel just day 10 or does safety demand even shorter
contests to address the dehydration issue?

No, we should address the dehydration issue by using a finish cylinder
that puts pilots under less stress at the end of every contest day.


Should we decide which day to close the gate and open the cylinder
based on daily pilot weigh ins?

Weren't you the one that wanted me to make *serious* arguments?

After a cylinder finish for points, low passes for show are safe,
right?

No, If a pilot made a low pass when the finish cylinder was in use, I
would consider that unsafe flying and probably give him an unsafe
flying penalty (if I was CD'ing the contest)

JJ Sinclair

On 3/27/05 7:34 PM, in article
,
" wrote:

Pull-up is not necessary at the finish cylinder, so why do it?

OK, I've lurked long enough. I'll probably be sorry, but....
Why not? Aren't we trying to puncture the edge of the cylinder very near its
bottom at maximum speed? Now, an instant later, we find ourselves 499' AGL
at redline less than a mile from the airport. Seems to me we sort of have to
pull up even a teensie bit to get slowed down and sorted out and into the
pattern.

Some math in prior posts points out that the length of the arc of the
cylinder we are trying to reach (on an AST at least) is even shorter than
the 1km long finish line. For me at least, all the cylinder does in this
case is move the bottom of the high speed pass up 450'. Maybe that's better
or safer, I'm not sure; it's certainly not obvious to me.

Additionally, the rules state that the 4 mile radio call for a finish is 4
miles from the finish point, the cylinder center. So with a 2mi radius
finish cylinder, radio calls come about a minute before the finish. With a
finish line, the 4 mile radio call gives 2 minutes of warning. I'd kinda
like as much warning as possible about who's nearby.

--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom --fix this before responding

At 15:00 28 March 2005, Bob Greenblatt wrote:
Additionally, the rules state that the 4 mile radio
call for a finish is 4
miles from the finish point, the cylinder center.

Oops, I read that one wrong - I've been calling in
too early.

9B

Don't let them drink anything but water and sports drinks during the
contest!

A rule of thumb I've heard is that for each beer one consumes, one must
consume an equal amount of water just to break even - that is, be just
as dehydrated as when that beer was started.

Now this should get some folks in a tizzy!

-Tom

Sure, Bob, one would normally exchange speed for a
little extra altitude, but nothing like the 2G climb
required after finishing at 50 feet. If anywhere near
the magic 500 foot mark, I pull the nose up slightly
and just let the speed bleed of as I fly the remaining
mile to the airport. Must be sure to get a couple of
hits from the GPS, inside the cylinder. The near-miss
at this years Seniors should be a wake-up call to all
of us. Watch those pull-ups. Don't do them if you don't
have to.
JJ

At 15:00 28 March 2005, Bob Greenblatt wrote:
On 3/27/05 7:34 PM, in article
.com,
' wrote:

Pull-up is not necessary at the finish cylinder, so
why do it?

OK, I've lurked long enough. I'll probably be sorry,
but....
Why not? Aren't we trying to puncture the edge of the
cylinder very near its
bottom at maximum speed? Now, an instant later, we
find ourselves 499' AGL
at redline less than a mile from the airport. Seems
to me we sort of have to
pull up even a teensie bit to get slowed down and sorted
out and into the
pattern.

Some math in prior posts points out that the length
of the arc of the
cylinder we are trying to reach (on an AST at least)
is even shorter than
the 1km long finish line. For me at least, all the
cylinder does in this
case is move the bottom of the high speed pass up 450'.
Maybe that's better
or safer, I'm not sure; it's certainly not obvious
to me.

Additionally, the rules state that the 4 mile radio
call for a finish is 4
miles from the finish point, the cylinder center. So
with a 2mi radius
finish cylinder, radio calls come about a minute before
the finish. With a
finish line, the 4 mile radio call gives 2 minutes
of warning. I'd kinda
like as much warning as possible about who's nearby.

--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom --fix this before responding

Jonathan,

Furstrating, huh?

JJ clearly prefers inductive reasoning. Must be from Missouri. We're
spouting syllogisms and JJ, whether he recognizes it or not, is basing
his reasoning on a series of hasty generalizations. In fact, JJ has
supported his argument with just about every logical fallacy common to
induction. This is very wise on JJ's part, as his ends (safety) justify
the means (inaccuracy) and absolve him of any errors since his heart is
in the right place. (I know, that sounds flip, and it is: I mean it
both as a compliment and complaint.) So, why shouldn't he take
advantage of those methods so commonly employed by politicians and
marketers to circumvent discernment?

As I've said before, some people can walk upright on a fallen tree
bridging a chasm. Others must get down on all fours and shinny across,
nearly paralyzed by fear of falling. And guess who's more likely to
fall...

Three monkeys. No one will see the near misses at the cylinder wall, so
they won't get discussed. Just like the near misses in thermals and at
turnpoints don't get much discussion, far from the gaze of the peanut
gallery. The finish cylinder is a tool. It has its applications. But a
cure all it isn't.

JJ, I would suggest that maintaining or slowly bleeding speed to the IP
creates exactly the same situation you've described as unacceptable in
the finish gate, except that rather than being the exception, it will
become the rule. Gliders finishing from all points on the compass,
proceeding at high speed to the pattern IP, with head on traffic
exponentially more common and pilot intent more random. We will manage
it, just like we manage the finish gate, until someone doesn't think
things through, or forgets to drink or eat or pee or exercise or use
the radio or switch glasses...

2g pull. That's what Reichmann recommends for thermal entry. That's
what I see most guys pull on course during dolphin flying. God, what
happens in that last 10-minute run for the finish? The only difference
I can discern is the length of the witness list! C'mon JJ, we do this
stuff all the time. Here in the East, we do it even closer to the
ground for hours at a time. We often fly hundreds of miles seldom
getting higher than 50 feet above the tree tops and manage to complete
180's at the end of the ridge with other gliders in front and behind.

I think you are over arguing your point. Tout the cylinder for its
virtues. Spend some time wrapping some regulation of traffic into the
cylinder formula. And help make the line a safer environment. It's not
going to go away quite yet, despite your best efforts. So how do we
improve safety at the line? Instead of dismissing ideas as irrelevant,
let's discuss them.