How does Winscore calculate finish altitude?

A question: How does Winscore calculate finish altitude on a cylinder
finish? I assume it is based on the logger's pressure altitude
reading for the closest logger fix after crossing the finish line, but
how is that altitude adjusted for the local altimeter setting? Does
it compare the difference between the finish "altitude" and the
altitude recorded when the glider comes to a stop on the field?

What if the field has a slope, and there is a significant difference
in elevation between where the glider stops after a finish (hopefully
not because it's in a tree!) and the official altitude of the finish
point?

On a separate (but related subject), could someone please explain to
me once again how staring at an altimeter and/or doing low energy
pullups during a contest cylinder finish is safe? Or how the
sometimes smarter (from a RACING perspective) alternative of not
wasting the time climbing those extra 500 ft, instead doing an L/D max
glide to a rolling finish, stopping as soon as possible on the first
bit of airfield, is a safer alternative than just calculating a
competitive safe final glide and flying it to the finish, then flying
the pattern dictated by the conditions?

Maybe we need radar altimeters in our gliders - oops, that wouldn't
work at Newcastle, never mind....Too bad our expensive loggers don't
tell us what altitude it's going to tell the scorer we finished at in
real time, so we could salvage a botched finish...

Kirk
66

kirk.stant wrote:
A question: How does Winscore calculate finish altitude on a cylinder
finish? I assume it is based on the logger's pressure altitude
reading for the closest logger fix after crossing the finish line, but
how is that altitude adjusted for the local altimeter setting? Does
it compare the difference between the finish "altitude" and the
altitude recorded when the glider comes to a stop on the field?

Something like that, maybe Guy will say something, or if worse comes to
worse, there's always the source code...

What if the field has a slope, and there is a significant difference
in elevation between where the glider stops after a finish (hopefully
not because it's in a tree!) and the official altitude of the finish
point?

If you're that close, I expect most CDs would simply give a pass, it is
possible for them to override WinScore...

On a separate (but related subject), could someone please explain to
me once again how staring at an altimeter and/or doing low energy
pullups during a contest cylinder finish is safe? Or how the
sometimes smarter (from a RACING perspective) alternative of not
wasting the time climbing those extra 500 ft, instead doing an L/D max
glide to a rolling finish, stopping as soon as possible on the first
bit of airfield, is a safer alternative than just calculating a
competitive safe final glide and flying it to the finish, then flying
the pattern dictated by the conditions?

This is probably why I'll never be a real racing pilot, but the
decision-making with cylinders has always been pretty easy for me. If I
don't think I'm going to make the bottom of the cylinder at best L/D,
but have the airport made, I'd simply choose to go for a rolling finish
thus avoiding the temptation to do something stupid. Of course, since
I've always had a 1000 feet or more of cushion on final glide (or end up
landing elsewhere), I've never had to make that choice. I might be a
few seconds slower than I could be if I were cutting the margins closer,
but it makes final glide and landing much more pleasant, and it hasn't
prevented me from winning the occasional task in the local regionals...

Marc

On Jul 26, 5:10 pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:
....
On a separate (but related subject), could someone please explain to
me once again how staring at an altimeter and/or doing low energy
pullups during a contest cylinder finish is safe? Or how the
sometimes smarter (from a RACING perspective) alternative of not
wasting the time climbing those extra 500 ft, instead doing an L/D max
glide to a rolling finish, stopping as soon as possible on the first
bit of airfield, is a safer alternative than just calculating a
competitive safe final glide and flying it to the finish, then flying
the pattern dictated by the conditions?

Maybe we need radar altimeters in our gliders - oops, that wouldn't
work at Newcastle, never mind....Too bad our expensive loggers don't
tell us what altitude it's going to tell the scorer we finished at in
real time, so we could salvage a botched finish...

Kirk
66

Here we go again :-)
I thought that we have this argument during the winter, when we can't
fly.

On a serious note, could you explain to me how a lower altitude is
safer than a higher one ? All other things being equal.

Todd Smith
3S

On a serious note, could you explain to me how a lower altitude is
safer than a higher one ? All other things being equal.

It's a matter of energy, not altitude.

Ask Garret Willat!

2NO

Hi kirk,
Windscore will flag any finish that doesn't meet the
set altitude. The scorer then compares your finish
altitude with the altitude recorded on landing. If
your landing pressure altitude shows 100 feet below
known field altitude, then you are allowed to finish
100 feet below the set finish altitude. Same process
is used for the start.

A contestant who comes home faster and then makes
a rolling finish may beat the guy that finishes slower
to make the 500 foot and 1 mile finish cylinder, soooooooooo,
most CD's will impose a 2 minute penalty for making
a rolling finish.
JJ

At 21:12 26 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
A question: How does Winscore calculate finish altitude
on a cylinder
finish? I assume it is based on the logger's pressure
altitude
reading for the closest logger fix after crossing the
finish line, but
how is that altitude adjusted for the local altimeter
setting? Does
it compare the difference between the finish 'altitude'
and the
altitude recorded when the glider comes to a stop on
the field?

What if the field has a slope, and there is a significant
difference
in elevation between where the glider stops after a
finish (hopefully
not because it's in a tree!) and the official altitude
of the finish
point?

On a separate (but related subject), could someone
please explain to
me once again how staring at an altimeter and/or doing
low energy
pullups during a contest cylinder finish is safe?
Or how the
sometimes smarter (from a RACING perspective) alternative
of not
wasting the time climbing those extra 500 ft, instead
doing an L/D max
glide to a rolling finish, stopping as soon as possible
on the first
bit of airfield, is a safer alternative than just calculating
a
competitive safe final glide and flying it to the finish,
then flying
the pattern dictated by the conditions?

Maybe we need radar altimeters in our gliders - oops,
that wouldn't
work at Newcastle, never mind....Too bad our expensive
loggers don't
tell us what altitude it's going to tell the scorer
we finished at in
real time, so we could salvage a botched finish...

Kirk
66

On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno wrote:
On a serious note, could you explain to me how a lower altitude is
safer than a higher one ? All other things being equal.

It's a matter of energy, not altitude.

Ask Garret Willat!

2NO

Yeah, but more altitude == more energy, for the same speed.

Todd
3S

On Jul 27, 7:41 am, toad wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno wrote:

On a serious note, could you explain to me how a lower altitude is
safer than a higher one ? All other things being equal.

It's a matter of energy, not altitude.

Ask Garret Willat!

2NO

Yeah, but more altitude == more energy, for the same speed.

Todd
3S

Todd,

First of all, this is about racing - so lower = faster is the concept
at hand. Safety is always the responsibility of the pilot in command,
and depends on a lot of factors that the rules cannot be expected to
cover.

Imagine a rule in NASCAR that said that if you got within a certain
distance of the wall, you would lose a lap, but the distance changes
based on your speed and you have no way of telling what it is until
after the race is over. Yeah, that would make sense! You would spend
all your time trying to figure out how close you can shave the
"distance" better than the other guy - it's a race, after all!

And since it is about racing, there should be a finish line that can
be determined by the pilot in real time in his cockpit, not a to-be-
determined-after-you-land finish line. I understand fully why the
500' finish rule was implemented. I don't agree with it, but you race
with the rules you get. My problem is that this rule (like the
quickly abandonned "extra 15 minutes on time tasks" rule, is badly
implemented and can cause some unfortunate unexpected consequences.

I have a couple of suggestions to make the finish cylinder better:

First, require the CD or a delegate on the field to have an accurate,
current (I mean right now) altimeter setting (from the center of the
finish airport, not the closest FSS) available to be passed to the
finishing pilot when he makes his 4 mile call. That would allow the
pilot to reset his altimeter and have a better shot at knowing his
altitude within 100' or so (check the spec on altimeter tolerances!).

Second, change the way the "low finish" penalty is scored. Off the
top of my head, if the pilot finishes below 500' agl but above 300'
agl, then add "penalty" time based on the time it would have taken to
climb the altitude required to get up to the 500' finish altitude
(using the average climb rate in the pilots last thermal). That would
take away the advantage of finishing low intentionally, since you can
either spend the time climbing or get it added back by finishing low,
but remove the "all or nothing" penalty that now exists, and would not
require as much clock-watching when approaching the finish in a
crowd. If finishing below 300 ' agl (and most of us can tell the
difference between 500' and 300', most of the time - and with a good
altimeter setting, can hit that altitude window), then use the current
scoring penalty - since at that altitude the pilot will probably want
to do a straight in anyway.

I really love racing, I just hate to see it munged with poorly thought
out and difficult to comply with rules.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

Oh, my, my, Kirk, did we get caught with our hand in
the cookie jar?

I set field elevation in my altimiter and then start
300 feet below the top of the gate. I try to finish
a good 2 to 300 feet above the finish cylinder, just
to keep from the problem you had.

At Parowan, Gharlie had a 800 foot, 1 mile gate which
I didn't like, but came to appreciate because it kept
the finishers above the guys in the landing pattern.
JJ



At 13:48 27 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:
On Jul 27, 7:41 am, toad wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno wrote:

On a serious note, could you explain to me how a
lower altitude is
safer than a higher one ? All other things being
equal.

It's a matter of energy, not altitude.

Ask Garret Willat!

2NO

Yeah, but more altitude == more energy, for the same
speed.

Todd
3S

Todd,

First of all, this is about racing - so lower = faster
is the concept
at hand. Safety is always the responsibility of the
pilot in command,
and depends on a lot of factors that the rules cannot
be expected to
cover.

Imagine a rule in NASCAR that said that if you got
within a certain
distance of the wall, you would lose a lap, but the
distance changes
based on your speed and you have no way of telling
what it is until
after the race is over. Yeah, that would make sense!
You would spend
all your time trying to figure out how close you can
shave the
'distance' better than the other guy - it's a race,
after all!

And since it is about racing, there should be a finish
line that can
be determined by the pilot in real time in his cockpit,
not a to-be-
determined-after-you-land finish line. I understand
fully why the
500' finish rule was implemented. I don't agree with
it, but you race
with the rules you get. My problem is that this rule
(like the
quickly abandonned 'extra 15 minutes on time tasks'
rule, is badly
implemented and can cause some unfortunate unexpected
consequences.

I have a couple of suggestions to make the finish cylinder
better:

First, require the CD or a delegate on the field to
have an accurate,
current (I mean right now) altimeter setting (from
the center of the
finish airport, not the closest FSS) available to be
passed to the
finishing pilot when he makes his 4 mile call. That
would allow the
pilot to reset his altimeter and have a better shot
at knowing his
altitude within 100' or so (check the spec on altimeter
tolerances!).

Second, change the way the 'low finish' penalty is
scored. Off the
top of my head, if the pilot finishes below 500' agl
but above 300'
agl, then add 'penalty' time based on the time it would
have taken to
climb the altitude required to get up to the 500' finish
altitude
(using the average climb rate in the pilots last thermal).
That would
take away the advantage of finishing low intentionally,
since you can
either spend the time climbing or get it added back
by finishing low,
but remove the 'all or nothing' penalty that now exists,
and would not
require as much clock-watching when approaching the
finish in a
crowd. If finishing below 300 ' agl (and most of us
can tell the
difference between 500' and 300', most of the time
- and with a good
altimeter setting, can hit that altitude window), then
use the current
scoring penalty - since at that altitude the pilot
will probably want
to do a straight in anyway.

I really love racing, I just hate to see it munged
with poorly thought
out and difficult to comply with rules.

Cheers,

Kirk
66

On Jul 27, 12:14 pm, John Sinclair
wrote:
Oh, my, my, Kirk, did we get caught with our hand in
the cookie jar?

I set field elevation in my altimiter and then start
300 feet below the top of the gate. I try to finish
a good 2 to 300 feet above the finish cylinder, just
to keep from the problem you had.

At Parowan, Gharlie had a 800 foot, 1 mile gate which
I didn't like, but came to appreciate because it kept
the finishers above the guys in the landing pattern.
JJ

At 13:48 27 July 2007, Kirk.Stant wrote:



On Jul 27, 7:41 am, toad wrote:
On Jul 26, 10:20 pm, Tuno wrote:

On a serious note, could you explain to me how a
lower altitude is
safer than a higher one ? All other things being
equal.

It's a matter of energy, not altitude.

Ask Garret Willat!

2NO

Yeah, but more altitude == more energy, for the same
speed.

Todd
3S

Todd,

First of all, this is about racing - so lower = faster
is the concept
at hand. Safety is always the responsibility of the
pilot in command,
and depends on a lot of factors that the rules cannot
be expected to
cover.

Imagine a rule in NASCAR that said that if you got
within a certain
distance of the wall, you would lose a lap, but the
distance changes
based on your speed and you have no way of telling
what it is until
after the race is over. Yeah, that would make sense!
You would spend
all your time trying to figure out how close you can
shave the
'distance' better than the other guy - it's a race,
after all!

And since it is about racing, there should be a finish
line that can
be determined by the pilot in real time in his cockpit,
not a to-be-
determined-after-you-land finish line. I understand
fully why the
500' finish rule was implemented. I don't agree with
it, but you race
with the rules you get. My problem is that this rule
(like the
quickly abandonned 'extra 15 minutes on time tasks'
rule, is badly
implemented and can cause some unfortunate unexpected
consequences.

I have a couple of suggestions to make the finish cylinder
better:

First, require the CD or a delegate on the field to
have an accurate,
current (I mean right now) altimeter setting (from
the center of the
finish airport, not the closest FSS) available to be
passed to the
finishing pilot when he makes his 4 mile call. That
would allow the
pilot to reset his altimeter and have a better shot
at knowing his
altitude within 100' or so (check the spec on altimeter
tolerances!).

Second, change the way the 'low finish' penalty is
scored. Off the
top of my head, if the pilot finishes below 500' agl
but above 300'
agl, then add 'penalty' time based on the time it would
have taken to
climb the altitude required to get up to the 500' finish
altitude
(using the average climb rate in the pilots last thermal).
That would
take away the advantage of finishing low intentionally,
since you can
either spend the time climbing or get it added back
by finishing low,
but remove the 'all or nothing' penalty that now exists,
and would not
require as much clock-watching when approaching the
finish in a
crowd. If finishing below 300 ' agl (and most of us
can tell the
difference between 500' and 300', most of the time
- and with a good
altimeter setting, can hit that altitude window), then
use the current
scoring penalty - since at that altitude the pilot
will probably want
to do a straight in anyway.

I really love racing, I just hate to see it munged
with poorly thought
out and difficult to comply with rules.

Cheers,

Kirk
66- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

JJ,

Yes, actually I did get caught out. I cut the margin a bit too close
(My altimeter showed me about 100 ft above the 500', but I suspect my
altimeter needs recalibration) so lost some points. Still won the
day, but It probably cost me the contest. No complaints, it was my
decision - I should have listened to 44 and landed straight in. Less
safe, perhaps, but a better race option. Live and learn...

My problem with the current system is that there is absolutely no way
for the pilot to know exactly where he is in relation to the finish
"line", and in a race situration, that is just plain bad rule-making.
I'm proposing what I think is a better way of addressing the issue,
which still allows the safety police to have their way.

Of course, what I really want is to go back to the finish line!
YeeHa!

At Parowan, I think you were right to use a high finish. But again,
with the current "all or nothing" penalty, the finish is still a
gamble.

Kirk

Yes, actually I did get caught out. I cut the margin a bit too close
(My altimeter showed me about 100 ft above the 500', but I suspect my
altimeter needs recalibration) so lost some points.

A good trick here is to look at the altitude that's being recorded in
the GPS rather than the aircraft altimeter. If you have a 302, the
altitude being displayed on the 302 is the same as being recorded on
the GPS so you know to the last foot exactly what's going on. Most
GPS systems can display altitude, you just have to find where it is
and look at it.

I should have listened to 44 and landed straight in. Less
safe, perhaps, but a better race option.

In most cases, it's the other way around: an early commitment to a
rolling finish is safer than arriving at 501 feet, 1 mile out, and 42
knots, much safer than staring at the altimeter for the last mile or
so if you're unsure you'll even make that, and far safer than
arriving at a finish line over the center of the airport at 50 feet,
50 knots. Was there something unusual at Ionia that turned this usual
advice around?

John Cochrane