Hard Deck

"my point exactly Karl! the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs. "

Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!

John cochrane

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:37:52 PM UTC, John Cochrane wrote

Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!

John cochrane

The point of the hard deck surely is to try to prevent something; to try to prevent pilots from going lower than the hard deck. Once below it they are out of the game and how they then try to get home would be up to them. The question is how might the presence of the hard deck below affect the decision making of pilots flying above it - particularly those who find themselves close to dropping under it and so incurring a technical land out?

John, it is not incentivizing taking risk by adding a penalty for doing so. Punitive measures will not prevent bad decisions made 30 minutes prior. Incentivize things by adding points to stay above a hard deck. Carrot v stick type thing. Insurance companies realize they pay less claims when you reduce rates for safe driving. Legislating against stupidity doesn't work too well. Making rules for an occasional stupid decision adds complexity for no real gain. Pilots have died in contests and flying and they will continue to do so regardless of rules. We can save more lives by good training and practicing safe flight management so when we screw up it results in a good story. Safety is a process and worrying about outcome takes us away from being in the process and making the right decision for the next step in the process which if followed results in the desired outcome. glidets can be replaced, people cannot. My view is the glider is absolutely expendable if destroying it removes energy and saves lives of people in the aircraft and on the ground. Do I want to wreck the ship? Not at all but allowing for this let's me focus on the process of being able to tell the story of how I lived and bought another ship. This is my choice just as it is for a racing pilot to take a risk on a low save for points. If this pilot has such an inflated ego or lack of respect for his friends and family to take excessive risk to win a contest only he really cares about then let them as long as their actions don't interfere with others. Safety rules should be put into place where the action of one can effect another. If a pilot wants to risk their own life we should let them.

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
"my point exactly Karl! the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs. "

Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!

John cochrane

but so i don't understand john, that sounds a little flimsy or at the very least downright bureaucratic. pardon me for seeming obstinate, but if the hard deck doesn't prevent anything, and people will still have low level mishaps, then the hard deck won't improve contest safety records. if it doesn't do that, then why complicate things with this proposed rule? simply in the name of absolving the competition rules of blame? that's absurd.

anyway, we already have to sign a "WAIVER OF CLAIMS, ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY, AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT". that's me the pilot saying that i'm legally responsible for my actions and their consequences.

the person to blame for getting smoked by circling at low altitude is always the PIC, never the rules or the contest organizers. the rules never force my hand to do anything.

Amen ND

Jon,

The scenario I have in mind is the one I’ve faced a couple of times.. You get a climb at Mt Siegel or near Heavenly and have a 30-mile glide in glassy air. As you near the steering turn you are below the minimum and the circle covers the only obvious place to climb. So what do you do? Option 1 is enter the circle, climb up and go home with a landout. Option 2 is stay out of the circle (avoid the mandatory landout if you enter), retreat to Carson and try to get a climb (or land) there. Option 3 is skirt the edge of the cylinder to avoid the mandatory landout and hope to get a climb somewhere northwest where the cylinder crosses the lake shore again. It’ll cost you several hundred feet to try but now your escape is back around the edge of the cylinder over the lake and back through the pass - or the golf course. A graduated penalty might help, but if it’s two gradual you are back to business as usual - too steep and people will do risky stuff to avoid the penalty...with escalating consequences.

9B

BB,

You’ve said several times now (and I agree) that the effect of the hard deck isn’t to reduce incidents of pilots attempting low saves - but you have also said it’s purpose is to eliminate the points incentive for doing so. Since we’ve reasonably established that there’s no competitive advantage to be gained from deliberately planning to go that low I find myself stuck on what the benefit is. Reducing an incentive that you admit won’t alter behavior o outcomes seems like an incentive with zero effect and therefore meaningless from a rule-making perspective.

Help me out - what’s the purpose of eliminating an incentive that’s so dominated by other factors that it doesn’t drive behavior or outcomes?

9B

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 4:14:49 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
BB,

You’ve said several times now (and I agree) that the effect of the hard deck isn’t to reduce incidents of pilots attempting low saves - but you have also said it’s purpose is to eliminate the points incentive for doing so. Since we’ve reasonably established that there’s no competitive advantage to be gained from deliberately planning to go that low I find myself stuck on what the benefit is. Reducing an incentive that you admit won’t alter behavior o outcomes seems like an incentive with zero effect and therefore meaningless from a rule-making perspective.

Help me out - what’s the purpose of eliminating an incentive that’s so dominated by other factors that it doesn’t drive behavior or outcomes?

9B

Boom goes the dynamite^ well said.

One thing that strikes me about this conversation is the number of pilots who apparently have little or no regard for the recommendations of the Soaring Safety Foundation.

I believe the SSF recommendation is a personal hard deck of 800 - 1000 agl in flat land with good landing options below (which were evaluated and chosen at higher altitudes). If you are in the mountains or the ridges, a similar level of safety factor (however you define it) should apply.

As I understand it, the recommendation is below your personal hard deck, you stop soaring and you land - period. This is a decision you make before you launch. This applies in all cases - local XC or contest flying.

Any SSF Trustees out there wish to chime in?

Lou

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:04:37 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Jon,

The scenario I have in mind is the one I’ve faced a couple of times. You get a climb at Mt Siegel or near Heavenly and have a 30-mile glide in glassy air. As you near the steering turn you are below the minimum and the circle covers the only obvious place to climb. So what do you do? Option 1 is enter the circle, climb up and go home with a landout. Option 2 is stay out of the circle (avoid the mandatory landout if you enter), retreat to Carson and try to get a climb (or land) there. Option 3 is skirt the edge of the cylinder to avoid the mandatory landout and hope to get a climb somewhere northwest where the cylinder crosses the lake shore again. It’ll cost you several hundred feet to try but now your escape is back around the edge of the cylinder over the lake and back through the pass - or the golf course. A graduated penalty might help, but if it’s two gradual you are back to business as usual - too steep and people will do risky stuff to avoid the penalty...with escalating consequences.

9B

Then make the cylinder 5 miles. That covers any conceivable area where you might find a climb, and any incentive to pass the cylinder to the left. There are days (very rarely) with thermal lift over Mt. Snow, you could get a climb there, exit the cylinder, re-enter and finish. On those days however, you are also very unlikely to be that low to begin with. Or move the cylinder over the Elevator or lake shore, so that any temptation to pass is to the east, which is generally safe.

I wouldn't score a landout for entering the cylinder low, but I would score a landout for not taking the cylinder legally, like any turnpoint.