Hard Deck

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:25:13 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:58:45 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
I invite you to apply hard deck logic to this flight.

John's been really clear about this... read it again Andy. His intent isn't to mess with ridge & mountain flying in any way.

Away from the airport, away from the ridge, he's proposing a 500' stairstep with a 500 agl minimum. In the big valley at Mifflin (elevation 800-ish) that's a 1500 msl hard deck. Can you thermal safely out of the Mifflin valley from 1500msl on a nice easy day? Certainly. John's proposal is to give you an administrative landout **before** you become dangerous to yourself.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Hi Evan,

yeah, i know what he's trying to do. it would just be interesting to see how to apply hard deck logic to that situation specifically. how would the hard deck taper to meet the ridge..? et cet.

as far as administrative landouts over the valley, or a flat land location.. let's say that you or i are down low and we've busted the hard deck just barely. Rats! toast for the day. contest blown. but seconds later we feel a bump we consider to be solid, we might still decide to turn. what i'm suggesting is that you can take someone's speed points away with the hard deck, but you can't stop them from circling. pilots might still be inclined to try and circle if they think they can avoid a retrieve and potential damage to their 'sheen. that's my argument.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:40:35 AM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
This hard deck concept fits in with the liberal, big brother, zero pain concept emanating from DC that is gradually dumbing down and choking away individual freedoms in our lives. Same for the min cylinder finish height.
Pilots know that engaging in any activity that exceeds 10 mph or 10 feet high has an element of danger. Let the pilot decide whether to chance a landing in field with hidden fences, wires, holes, crops, or animals or climb out and fly home.
As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.

Karl Striedieck

Thank you Karl, Exactly!

The suggestion that an armchair committee might judge the safety margin of a landing without having been there and without an accurate flight log seems pretty silly to me.

CORRECTION: I meant 'judge the safety margin of a save'. If a landing occurs, then the scrutiny can be valid (as I've tried to point out here earlier).

Since very low saves almost never work, we're not actually going to let much get by with such a sampling scheme. The ultimate goal of motivating safer flying would be met.

"Since very low saves almost never work, we're not actually going to let
much"

Yep -Hard deck is a silly idea. LLets move on!


At 16:59 30 January 2018, Steve Koerner wrote:
The suggestion that an armchair committee might judge the safety margin
of
a landing without having been there and without an accurate flight log
seems pretty silly to me.

CORRECTION: I meant 'judge the safety margin of a save'. If a landing
occurs, then the scrutiny can be valid (as I've tried to point out here
earlier).

Since very low saves almost never work, we're not actually going to let
much get by with such a sampling scheme. The ultimate goal of motivating
safer flying would be met.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:40:35 AM UTC-7, Karl Striedieck wrote:
This hard deck concept fits in with the liberal, big brother, zero pain concept emanating from DC that is gradually dumbing down and choking away individual freedoms in our lives. Same for the min cylinder finish height.
Pilots know that engaging in any activity that exceeds 10 mph or 10 feet high has an element of danger. Let the pilot decide whether to chance a landing in field with hidden fences, wires, holes, crops, or animals or climb out and fly home.
As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.

Karl Striedieck

Karl said it for me! Any experienced cross-country pilot should be capable of making these decisions for themselves and not be subjected to an increasing barrage of restrictive rules. There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try. Similarly flying near mountain ridges where a rough thermal could toss you into the rocks but smooth ridge lift or weaker thermals might be safe. And if you can't properly plan and execute a final glide, you should take up another sport!

Mike

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:40:35 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:
This hard deck concept fits in with the liberal, big brother, zero pain concept emanating from DC that is gradually dumbing down and choking away individual freedoms in our lives. Same for the min cylinder finish height.
Pilots know that engaging in any activity that exceeds 10 mph or 10 feet high has an element of danger. Let the pilot decide whether to chance a landing in field with hidden fences, wires, holes, crops, or animals or climb out and fly home.
As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.

Karl Striedieck

Not a racer, but assigning a political "concept" one way or the other to a rule suggestion is one of the more ridiculous ideas I can think of. Do you really think there is an actual connection between the two? Or would it be better that it be taken at face value as an honest suggestion to improve safety. Nah, must come from someones agenda apparently. Maybe the connection you find is more about you than anything having to do with the rule suggestion.

I believe the current thought is.......,"you blow the hard deck, argue your case to the CD", you give a good case (possible in your case), no penalty. Carry on.

I have posted a few real world examples where some "value" for a hard deck may land someone even though the flight may be "safe".

As I stated before, you can't fix stupid, nor can you make rules to remove stupid and not possibly kill good skill.

Good discussion, not a current competition pilot but I have done local flying in 1-26 and up, regionals and Nats. In general, you will likely find (as mentioned in this thread) "winners" are not usually scraping rocks or doing other unsafe maneuvers.

I started going to contests where you picked your start time at the pilots meeting (as support/crew) and have been around as support or flying since.
Many rules changes, still stupid stuff going on (see my earlier post about a pilot with good brakes not being able to stop on the pavement on HHSC....).
Sheesh.

I still have no say in this current discussion, just following along to see what rules I may deal with down the road.

"There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try."

If we could see some contest flight logs demonstrating the former then this might all go away as you wish.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 8:40:35 AM UTC-8, Karl Striedieck wrote:
As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.

Karl Striedieck

On a day when most people can stay high, true. On a day when only a few make it home, not true. In a contest where that day determines the winner, a single low save can determine the winner.

That's why a scoring change might be able to accomplish the same goal: throwing out the low day score, or the high and low score of each contestant. Consistency counts for more, and would influence behavior some too - if a guy is at 500 ft and struggling he will just think, "I'll throw this one out" and execute a safe landing.

I'd like to think there is some middle ground between complete proscribed flight and the notion that making it back with all your blood inside and your heart still beating is defined as a safe flight.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-8, Mike the Strike wrote:

Karl said it for me! Any experienced cross-country pilot should be capable of making these decisions for themselves and not be subjected to an increasing barrage of restrictive rules. There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try. Similarly flying near mountain ridges where a rough thermal could toss you into the rocks but smooth ridge lift or weaker thermals might be safe. And if you can't properly plan and execute a final glide, you should take up another sport!

Mike

“One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity there ain’t nothing can beat teamwork.�
Mark Twain