Hard Deck

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 7:09:13 AM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 12:14:40 AM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:

I can't speak for John's idea, but the hard deck I was think of would break that chain back when you could do something about it.

I've been skeptical of the idea that losing speed points will change low save behavior once it happens - the inconvenience and risk of landing out in that moment seems to me to be the more important factors.

This is a slightly different take on the argument - and somewhat similar to the logic associated with low finish penalties. Can you create a penalty incentive that is a realistic inducement for pilots to climb a little higher, or glide a little flatter, to avoid ending up hazardously low and struggling?

I think the answer for the two decisions is decidedly different. On final glides over a known distance to a known finish height, a penalty gradient can specifically offset the points spent to take extra time to climb slowly in the last thermal of the day. A steeper penalty gradient can even influence the probabilistic assessment of a pilot contemplating leaving a slow-ish climb in hope of finding a better one in the limited number of miles on the way home.

On the other hand, on-course decisions are much less certain. The distance to the next thermal is much more uncertain and (depending on where you fly) the altitude you don't want to get below because you'll need to slow way below McCready speed is much higher than 500'.

Flying in the Great Basin there are places where pilots start dialing back at 3-4,000 AGL. Even in flatland soaring I don't know of many pilots who are steaming ahead at 90 knots at 1,500' AGL absent a dust-devil in the next mile or two. So, what pilot is going to take extra turns in a thermal at 5,000 AGL in anticipation of potentially getting committed to landing out at 500' instead of 350' some 35 miles ahead? Even a pilot who's down to 2,000' AGL over the prairie wouldn't (it seems to me) make different decisions because they perceive they'd have a fraction of a mile (from the 500'-350' difference) less range to search for lift before a landout. My limit for giving up on pressing on is closer to 1,000 than 350' so for decision-making purposes I'm above the Hard Deck, not below it.

The "stop the dangerous decision chain before it starts" argument doesn't seem to me to work - at least not with a 500' hard deck. You'd need more like 1500' feet or more in the east and something like 2-3,000' in a lot of places out west. If people are not up for the notion of a hard deck at 500' it's hard to imagine anyone getting excited about one high enough to alter the decisions that (only in a probabilistic sense) matter.

Andy Blackburn
9B

As I have stated on multiple occasions up thread, the 500 ft deck might help back east where the whole contest is run below 2000 ft and landing sites are plentiful, it will do nothing in the Great Basin where landing sites are 50 miles apart and altitudes needed are 5000'+ AGL. No one (well - very few) circle at 500 ft out here. If you are 2000' above the valley, you are already 2000' below the ridges where the lift is, 10'000 ft below the clouds where the strong lift is, likely going down, and if you spend an hour digging out you certainly won't be on the podium that day.

Yet the problem of taking big risks to win still exists. Sometimes in the form of a final glide very low over forest or water, this is more of a problem at Truckee than Minden. On a return to Minden if you can clear the ridges from any direction you will make the airport. But also in big excursions way to the back of an AAT towards attractive clouds but where no landing site exists should the clouds be unproductive. To provide any meaningful limit, the hard deck would be high (not 1500', potentially many thousands of feet), but limited to areas that are unlandable. Nowhere would it be 500' AGL. As you say, out here, 500' AGL can be an hour away from where I am now even with no lift.

Knauff says 1 of 10 off field landings result in a broken glider. That may be true in eastern farm fields, in much the Nevada desert it is 1 in 5 or probably worse. There isn't much open space and most of what there is, is unlandable without damage. Many of the charted airports are unlandable with an 18m glider. Some are landable one year (because they have cut the bordering sage brush that Spring) and not the next. You do not know until you visit them on the ground, or your wingtip catches.

Since T8 is reverting to the ad hominem attacks, I'll assume I've won the logical argument . His views are clearly stated and speak for themselves - I don't need to twist them. It is a difference in philosophy between: the pilot takes any risk they like any may win if they survive, or the contest rules enforce a minimum acceptable risk. These are values, and like most values are not provably right or wrong, but arrived at by consensus of the population.

The 2000' AGL finish at Truckee amounts to a very good incentive for final glides over lake Tahoe -- and is intended that way. If you don't have 2000' extra in the bank, there is just no point to starting the journey. I think Sergio had this specifically in mind.

John Cochrane

Yes, a lot of the point of hard deck is to move the whole decision-making chain upward. Now you treat 2000' AGL as you used to treat 1000' AGL, at least for sporting purposes.

On whether it actually will change behavior, this thread has produced a classic example of cognitive dissonance -- holding two contrary ideas in mind at one time.

A) No pilot is so dumb they're thinking about points below 1000'. (Both positive and negative -- the lure of getting home is so strong they will screw around down low without points, and pilots are so sensible they wouldn't screw around down low just for points)

B) Pilots will spend all their time watching the instruments trying to figure out if they have busted the minimum. Just to draw out the logic, that behavior only results if you think that pilots indeed are concerned entirely about points, and making all decisions at 550 feet with that in mind.

General: We have spent too much time on "low saves." That's really not the issue. As I looked at many traces of off field landing accidents in contests, what's clearly going on is very low and late decision making. Whether hoping for a low save or for other reasons, failing to follow the usual advice that below 600 feet forget about everything else and land is the key issue. In not one of the traces I have seen - which all ended in damage -- did the pilot start a sensible downwind at 600 feet, base, final. It's all mad dash low altitude and low speed maneuvering.


John Cochrane

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 10:14:59 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The 2000' AGL finish at Truckee amounts to a very good incentive for final glides over lake Tahoe -- and is intended that way. If you don't have 2000' extra in the bank, there is just no point to starting the journey. I think Sergio had this specifically in mind.

John Cochrane

At Truckee, the problem with the 8000 msl finish line is that at that time of day you are nearly guaranteed of being able to climb up to the finish, if you make it into the Martis valley out of Lake Tahoe. This has been done a number of times in contests, proving that the finish line height alone is not a deterrent. My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win. I'm not adverse to anyone testing the water there, but would prefer not compete with those willing to give it a go. There is never lift over the lake, so the only skill being tested is the ability to ridge soar on an irregular ridge in weak lift, bound by rocks, with no option except a water landing. That is a risk that some may want to manage, but most don't.

Jon Fitch: You are burdened with a view of off-field landing that is distorted. I can see that in many things you've been writing and suggesting. We should have a separate thread about how to pick fields and make good off-field landings. I know a guy that has made maybe 75 or more off field landings on farm fields, pastures, parking lots, golf courses, gas stations, backyards, roads, and dry lakes. He's a lucky damn ******* for sure but the only off-airport damage he's ever had is a tweaked gear once (which still worked) due to a deep track in a circle field. Landing off field is just part of soaring. Actually, it's a fun part of soaring.

Jon: I stand corrected. Silly me, having only flown two weeks out of Truckee, the idea of squaring over the pass and then thermaling up to finish at the hot rocks never occurred to me. Yes

Steve: Off field landings are all well and good, but there is simply nowhere to land on the north side of the Lake Tahoe basin. Zero, zilch, nada. One landing has been made on the golf course, but it looks mighty chancy to say nothing of the golfers.

Both: The general idea of a last turnpoint with minimum altitude, as practiced in the SGP, has a lot of merit, when there are no good fields close to the airport for blown final glides. It would also allow finish lines such as we had at Uvalde without some of the amazingly close calls we also had at Uvalde.

John cochrane

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 2:12:32 PM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
Landing off field is just part of soaring.

I agree Steve - every time one takes off, they need to be prepared for an off field landing.

Actually, it's a fun part of soaring.

Not for me - besides the increased risk, it is a total pain in the ass. Time, retrieve, disassembly in a field, etc. Did I mention lost contest points

I think the risk of landing out is a key "turn off" for potential soaring pilots and potential contest pilots. (Maybe#1.)

I am a huge fan of the training one gets through the SSA Badge process.

Lou

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 1:55:11 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win.

How big a radius would you need at Market Lake to keep the low guys from attempting to go straight to the back side of Martis Peak for a climb to get high enough to make the steering turn? 10-15 miles? If you set that radius would anybody risk going further west (hugging the outside of the steering turn radius) if they were below 10,200'? If it's 10,200' with a big radius do you have to hold 10,200' everywhere within the radius? The gets you to about 1 mile from the finish.

An alternate approach might be a 10,500' finish height with a 15 mile radius, though I expect that might create it's own challenges. That would let you finish on the east side of Mt Rose and land at Carson.

9B

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 4:16:47 PM UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 1:55:11 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win.

How big a radius would you need at Market Lake to keep the low guys from attempting to go straight to the back side of Martis Peak for a climb to get high enough to make the steering turn? 10-15 miles? If you set that radius would anybody risk going further west (hugging the outside of the steering turn radius) if they were below 10,200'? If it's 10,200' with a big radius do you have to hold 10,200' everywhere within the radius? The gets you to about 1 mile from the finish.

An alternate approach might be a 10,500' finish height with a 15 mile radius, though I expect that might create it's own challenges. That would let you finish on the east side of Mt Rose and land at Carson.

9B

Marlette Lake (autocorrect - smh).

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 2:16:47 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 1:55:11 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win.

How big a radius would you need at Market Lake to keep the low guys from attempting to go straight to the back side of Martis Peak for a climb to get high enough to make the steering turn? 10-15 miles? If you set that radius would anybody risk going further west (hugging the outside of the steering turn radius) if they were below 10,200'? If it's 10,200' with a big radius do you have to hold 10,200' everywhere within the radius? The gets you to about 1 mile from the finish.

An alternate approach might be a 10,500' finish height with a 15 mile radius, though I expect that might create it's own challenges. That would let you finish on the east side of Mt Rose and land at Carson.

9B

The steering turn needn't be very big at all. There is the possibility of tree topping Brockway, then climbing out and going back to Marlette, but it's a long way back, would require a pretty good climb likely near Mt Rose, and you'd be unlikely to win anything doing that. You'd be adding about 35 uncredited miles to your distance. I'd go for a 2-3 mile radius, and you merely have to enter above the floor. That would keep someone from ridge soaring up into it, though the days that you could do that are very rare. On days when you could thermal directly off of Martis, get back to Marlette at 10..2 and back again, you would have been much better off getting 1000' higher at Seigel or Freel, and flying home. It isn't perfect, a very risk tolerant pilot might ridge soar the Elevator, squeak Brockway, happen to hit one of those days when the Martis valley is working better than anywhere else, go back and get the turnpoint when everyone else baled to Carson. That's going to be a rare day. I'm pretty familiar with this run, done it maybe 50 times? 100 times? not sure but a lot. I'd also have a penalty down to 9200', and a landout below that. The rational is that it is difficult to predict the sink over the Carson valley sometimes.

Steve - yes I have a distaste for off field landings. I don't like repairing gliders or flying repaired gliders. I've hung around the repair facility enough to see the effects of off field landings. Those guys love them - good for business. A nice grassy farm field is one thing, where I fly you rarely see those, if you do there is probably an airport nearby. The area we routinely fly over is about 20,000 square miles. It is not practical to research potential landing sites over that area, and they change dramatically from year to year. I have a hard time accepting that crashing is part of flying. Maybe we should require that anyone posting include their total repair bill for the last 10 years in the first line. That might put some perspective on the opinions .

I try to keep the possibility of an off field landing at an unknown site a remote possibility. And of course my glider has a starter button as a backup plan . When I sell it, I'd like to be able to claim N.D.H.