Hard Deck

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 3:33:38 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-8, Per Carlin wrote:
Are we not trying to overcomplicate things again with this sua-file?

With this file do we remove the responsibility to fly safe from the pilot to the CD. It is the pilot who decides what is safe and what is not, anykind of rules should not take over this responibility. But it should remove the gain of stupidity. And what will happens if the CD makes the sua-file wrong. Who to blame, the pilot or the CD?

An easier solution would be to stop counting distance points from 300m(~100feet) AGL of your outlanding. If you landout do you get max distance of the logg where you are at least 300m above the landing. The hard deck can be defined i local procedures according to actuall terrain as in Big forrest areas should the level be increase compared to the flatland with large agricultures.


This would not take out the thrill of an low save, but it will stop you from making studid glides on low level to gain thoose valuble extra points as each km gives you. Thoose glides are a real problem, current rules promotes stupidity to glide as far as possible when the outlanding is unaviodable. Each extra km can be 4 points, 10km can be 40points and that can be the difference to be on the podium or not at a WGC. So how are you gonna spend your last 300m, make a pattern and loose the medal or continue and win the game?

With rules that stops giving you distance points does not remove the pilots resposibility but it take away the gain on doing something stupid.

/Per Carlin

Isn't that just a hard deck set at 300m AGL? Doesn't it have all the same critics as the SUA file version? You still can't see it, it still eliminates the 200' ridge crossings. You are still going to circle in P3's half knotter if you see yourself falling below it.

We have at least on instance of the SUA version, the Reno Class C. It's an irregular (but well known) shape, and large. It is overflown frequently in contests, and has been that way for about 20 years. There've been people DSQ'd for dropping into it. I've not heard any complaints or problems with it.

It's significantly different Jon. No new rules have to be created. No new SUA files have to be created.

Because it is precisely ground referenced, it can be much lower (my suggestion 300 ft vs John's hard deck suggestion of 500 to 1000 ft). That makes for essentially no impact on all of the scenarios. For any sensible pilot a ground referred 300 ft rule does not impede or confuse any flying behavior.. It is assuredly the case that you and I would have made the chose to land before that point -- not so with an altitude based and variable 500 to 1000 ft rule.

I agree that it is not accurately knowable in the cockpit. But with a 300 ft ground referenced rule, that makes essentially no difference. Nobody will need to game a 300 ft rule.

The concept of applying a hard deck for soaring competition is pure lunacy. Stop trying to pretend competition can be "ruled" free of risk. Or otherwise, lets just give every entrant "first place" like they do in kid's sports..

The undeniable fact of winning races (in any sport) is pushing one's skills and equipment to the limit of their abilities while enjoying a pinch or two of good fortune. By surpassing personal limits, one then enters the "stupid zone" where anything can happen. Is a hard deck limit not an attempt to fix stupid?

Good luck with that.

Steve, I don't think that addresses John's issue, and certainly not mine. Once a guy has landed out, he's taken a big points hit. This would reward even lower circling, hoping that you would get away and not be subject to scrutiny and a penalty. If you make the save at 200', you've saved the day and your contest position and are not subject to your proposed penalty. The more prudent pilot that stopped at 800' and landed, did neither and is punished for it.

Here's how the calculus will work in the cockpit: If I circle below 300 ft, I will have a 10% chance of getting away and gaining 400 points; at the same time, I will have a 90% chance of losing 200 points. I'm pretty sure that 200 points is plenty enough to make that an easy choice -- that would make for a net expectation of -140 points. Clearly, it could be an even easier choice if the penalty were made larger. I don't think it needs to be larger.

And, normally a landout costs less than 400 points compared to a finisher -- that number, of course, is variable but representative. My 10% number is variable too, but I think it would also be representative of what anyone might reasonably be expecting from a try at 300 ft. Right?

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 4:39:48 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
Steve, I don't think that addresses John's issue, and certainly not mine. Once a guy has landed out, he's taken a big points hit. This would reward even lower circling, hoping that you would get away and not be subject to scrutiny and a penalty. If you make the save at 200', you've saved the day and your contest position and are not subject to your proposed penalty. The more prudent pilot that stopped at 800' and landed, did neither and is punished for it.

Here's how the calculus will work in the cockpit: If I circle below 300 ft, I will have a 10% chance of getting away and gaining 400 points; at the same time, I will have a 90% chance of losing 200 points. I'm pretty sure that 200 points is plenty enough to make that an easy choice -- that would make for a net expectation of -140 points. Clearly, it could be an even easier choice if the penalty were made larger. I don't think it needs to be larger.

And, normally a landout costs less than 400 points compared to a finisher -- that number, of course, is variable but representative. My 10% number is variable too, but I think it would also be representative of what anyone might reasonably be expecting from a try at 300 ft. Right?

OK, I'm feeling it a little more, with respect to safety aspects of circling that low. I'm still not feeling it with respect to any reduction of reward/risk in situations where 300 ft is already 3000 ft too low. In Per Carlin's proposal, it still seems as complicated as SUAs, especially if you are going to raise and lower the limit based on area - this is just like an SUA, though locally ground referenced rather than pressure referenced.

But those arguments have clarified in my mind that there are two or perhaps several distinct issues. One is to remove the reward for circling below pattern altitude near a landing site - this seems to apply mostly to the east where heights are low and landing sites more plentiful. It addresses both the safety and competitive advantage aspects of that behavior. Another is overflying unlandable areas too low. This may not involve circling at all, and might be quite high considered in isolation. This is more likely the situation in the west, where altitudes are high but landing areas are far between.

I consider both circling at 300 ft, and flying deep into unlandable territory to low to escape - even if perhaps high on the altimeter - to be unacceptable risks. If the expected lift does not materialize, the only difference in outcome is the end point of the latter is delayed a few minutes. But in considering the latter I seem to be in the minority. I gather from this that most competition pilots consider overflying unlandable territory too low to escape to be an acceptable risk of competition.

Jon, I doubt anyone would disagree with the proposition that gliding too low over unlandable terrain is a bigger issue than guys trying for an excessively low save. The thing is that there is nothing practical to be done about excessively bold gliding (see my above post at 8:41 AM). Being excessively bold does come in every shade of grey and is not amenable to legislation.. Guys that are so afflicted, do eventually break a glider and get recalibrated. In the meantime, picking our own landout option is about the most elemental thing we do. The fact is, that, every vehicular sport has its dangerous edges.

For the 300 ft problem, the suggestion here is that we do have a way we can address that particular hazard without needing to go nuclear with new rules and constraints.

Hey look someone already solved this problem, and whole bunch of other ones. Welcome to the future of glider racing, no low thermaling, no breaking gliders in crash fields, no retrieve crew.
http://worldairgames.aero/airsports/gliding

Based on that statement, you should probably avoid landing, and always stay
above 1000ft agl or simply not take off!

At 19:42 26 January 2018, Charlie M. UH & 002 owner/pilot wrote:
As ex CFIG, how low do you want to recover from a stall/spin?
For me higher the better......

Please qualify? Has it really, or is it the late field selection associated
with the below statement that has caused the crashes?

Low i.e. 500ft agl above a good pre-selected field, by an experienced pilot
in an aircraft they are familiar with is not unreasonable.

500ft having not considered the options and planned a field landing would
not be safe.

At 22:00 26 January 2018, John Cochrane wrote:


The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose
is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led
to
many crashes.

John Cochrane

I would argue that putting a hard deck rule in place has the ability to
create a safety issue rather than mitigate it.

What happens when the competitor drops below the proposed hard deck?

Must they simply land?

Do they give up trying, and then land out trying to get home, possibly
unfocussed and a bit dejected?

You would then be putting pilots in a situation where they are forced into
landing in an unknown environment and by doing so increasing the risk.

Statistics are statistics and can be manipulated to give the desired
outcome.

The issue here is field section, or lack thereof.

There are many factors that influence what is a safe height to climb away:

1) Experience
2) Hours on type
3) Terrain
4) Having a chosen / planned land out option
5) Aircraft type
6) Weather - reliable day Vs unreliable day

Competition gliding is in decline, keep adding rules which removes the
pilot judgment, the decline will be more rapid.

Just my humble opinion.

1000 + hours
Flown 15+ contests
Past contest director
150 hours in the mountains.

I'm opposing any hard-deck rule. I have been competing with mixed results in gliders since 1996 and I started a CD "career" 4 years ago.
Under a hard deck rule, a pilot who finds himself low will struggle to judge whether he's going to reach a promising hot spot while still on a valid score. He may have to divert to a less than ideal and maybe more uncertain thermal source (lots to complain after the flight).

If in any case he will break through the hard deck, he'll be delusional. That won't stop him from trying to avoid the inconvenience of the retrieve. If he manages to climb out, more he will have reasons to complain against the rule.

On the other hand, I'm totally in favour of the remote finish, high finish gate or finish ring. There are negative factors as well (less lookout and more instrument focus, slow and erratic flying close to the finush), but the balance is in my opinion largely in favour of the high finish line.

Aldo Cernezzi