A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hard Deck



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old January 29th 18, 03:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 394
Default Hard Deck

A few years back, I was turning final for a land-out at Swee****er strip (45 miles south of Minden). At 300 feet I hit a large bump and thought about trying one turn in it to see if I could climb, but declined because my hard deck was 500 feet. I landed, called in, then I watched another sailplane hit the same bump, but he turned in it, climbed away and made it home. Should he be penalized? Maybe he had more experience than I had. Maybe he knew that when a west wind blew, it went around mount Patterson and then met again on the east side.......right where my big bump was found. We can't legislate judgement or experience!
JJ..............PS, I'm old enough to remember when the national rules were only 2 pages!
  #52  
Old January 29th 18, 04:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Clay[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default Hard Deck

It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals were due to a 500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or percentage then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way the game is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero ....
  #53  
Old January 29th 18, 05:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
MNLou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 271
Default Hard Deck

I believe the intent of a hard deck would, indeed, be to change the way the game is played.

Lou
  #54  
Old January 29th 18, 05:30 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Michael Opitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default Hard Deck

At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals

were
d=
ue to a 500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or
percent=
age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way

the
ga=
me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20


Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of at
least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this happened.
I'm sure there are many more...

RO

  #55  
Old January 29th 18, 05:55 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 7:10:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
A few years back, I was turning final for a land-out at Swee****er strip (45 miles south of Minden). At 300 feet I hit a large bump and thought about trying one turn in it to see if I could climb, but declined because my hard deck was 500 feet. I landed, called in, then I watched another sailplane hit the same bump, but he turned in it, climbed away and made it home. Should he be penalized? Maybe he had more experience than I had. Maybe he knew that when a west wind blew, it went around mount Patterson and then met again on the east side.......right where my big bump was found. We can't legislate judgement or experience!
JJ..............PS, I'm old enough to remember when the national rules were only 2 pages!


I very much agree with you, JJ. A lot of what is magical about soaring and glider racing is the element of self-determination, operating independent of authorities and deciding your own fate. Towards that, I want to give up no airspace and I do not want any more cumbersome rules and restrictions. I want the liberty to make all of my own choices as I deem best for me. It's for those reasons that I opposed the original incarnation of hard deck.

Yet it is truly painfully for all of us that we are suffering too many serious accidents. It would seem that there is an opportunity to significantly reduce one of the several categories of accidents and give up almost nothing in terms of flying liberty. My proposition is that giving up only the altitude below 300 ft in the flats really is giving up almost nothing. If you might have glossed through my alternative hard deck proposal of yesterday afternoon, take a look at that as a separate consideration please. I know that it can only help the overall accident problem a wee bit -- perhaps it's just one guy every ten years that might be saved from his own temptation. Maybe he's worth saving if we can do it with no new rules and no new complications to how we fly contests?
  #56  
Old January 29th 18, 07:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Hard Deck

Thanks JJ for sharing. I have had the same thing happen to me, nice to know I am not alone. I had a firm hard deck back then (should probably readdress this) and I was fine with my decision to land as it was made a year before after a friend hit a bump tried a few circles and then couldn't make his intended landing spot. After my fried broke his bird, I made my hard deck and several time over the years I have come up against the hard deck while hitting a bump, NEVER have I made that turn, as I had decided long before..

Having said the above, I did come to an outlanding last summer very low. Got to a "dry lake" with obstacles encroaching from both sides a small stream running through the middle. I arrived at the lake at 300 ft AGL and felt I needed to fly the length of the landing area to pick my path turn 180 degrees fly back, another 180 degree turn and land. The final turn was at 100 feet AGL as per my flight logger. A hard deck would not have changed anything. I made a mistake in pushing on 15 miles south of where I landed. I should have stayed and got the altitude or abandoned the task. I did no low attitude thermaling (other than scrapping rocks trying to break a thermal lose) while still at altitude over valley floor, yet still I was not in the best situation.

Mind you I had a sustainer with a starter and did not think of using it as I was too low when I got to dry lake. I am with Steve Koerner on this matter. Whether the goal is safety or leveling the competition field a fool like me will still screw up 15, 30minutes before the deck and end up where we tried to prevent by more rules and airspace restriction.

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 6:10:52 AM UTC-8, wrote:
A few years back, I was turning final for a land-out at Swee****er strip (45 miles south of Minden). At 300 feet I hit a large bump and thought about trying one turn in it to see if I could climb, but declined because my hard deck was 500 feet. I landed, called in, then I watched another sailplane hit the same bump, but he turned in it, climbed away and made it home. Should he be penalized? Maybe he had more experience than I had. Maybe he knew that when a west wind blew, it went around mount Patterson and then met again on the east side.......right where my big bump was found. We can't legislate judgement or experience!
JJ..............PS, I'm old enough to remember when the national rules were only 2 pages!

  #57  
Old January 29th 18, 07:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-5, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals

were
d=
ue to a 500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or
percent=
age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way

the
ga=
me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20


Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of at
least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this happened.
I'm sure there are many more...

RO


I'd very much like to see the flight logs. These logs ought to be public domain, so let's shine some light on the subject.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
  #58  
Old January 29th 18, 07:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Hard Deck

Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.

Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next..

Change of pace........

Another contest site example.......

Dansville, NY, returning from the SE, look up Avoca as an airport in the valley heading towards Dansville.
Local conventional wisdom is, "if you're coming up the valley and clear the valley by a few hundred feet, you have the airport made".
The valley drops off enough so a 35:1 or better glider can follow the slope, clear the town, make the airport.
In the "olden days", this was fine.
With newer current minimum finish heights, you need a bit more over the valley crest to not bust minimums at the finish line.

Granted, if there is much of any NW wind, the right side of the dropoff may put you on the backside of the ridge on the way to town.
Trust me, it's not fun in that case.

There is the front lawn of a hospital just before town, totally landable if you are sorta sharp, been there twice. Pass the lawn, it gets real ugly until over the airport fence, this why I landed on the lawn twice maybe 3/4 mile from the airport.

The new minimum numbers would likely land quite a few doing that route that can be safe, but low.

Another return is from the south/SSW from Hornel, you can fall off a higher valley floor, run through small gorges with fields all over on the way to the airport. Great landing sites (better than going over the town......) but still likely to bust suggested minimums.

I am not aware of any broken gliders in either case over the years.
I am not for or against the proposed suggested rules change.
Just pointing out some "flatlander" situations that may be impacted by a "minimum valley clearance height".

Not trying to argue or defend myself, just adding specific info to the discussion.
  #59  
Old January 29th 18, 07:50 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.

Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next.

  #60  
Old January 29th 18, 07:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:51:00 AM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.

Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next.

Change of pace........

Another contest site example.......

Dansville, NY, returning from the SE, look up Avoca as an airport in the valley heading towards Dansville.
Local conventional wisdom is, "if you're coming up the valley and clear the valley by a few hundred feet, you have the airport made".
The valley drops off enough so a 35:1 or better glider can follow the slope, clear the town, make the airport.
In the "olden days", this was fine.
With newer current minimum finish heights, you need a bit more over the valley crest to not bust minimums at the finish line.

Granted, if there is much of any NW wind, the right side of the dropoff may put you on the backside of the ridge on the way to town.
Trust me, it's not fun in that case.

There is the front lawn of a hospital just before town, totally landable if you are sorta sharp, been there twice. Pass the lawn, it gets real ugly until over the airport fence, this why I landed on the lawn twice maybe 3/4 mile from the airport.

The new minimum numbers would likely land quite a few doing that route that can be safe, but low.

Another return is from the south/SSW from Hornel, you can fall off a higher valley floor, run through small gorges with fields all over on the way to the airport. Great landing sites (better than going over the town......) but still likely to bust suggested minimums.

I am not aware of any broken gliders in either case over the years.
I am not for or against the proposed suggested rules change.
Just pointing out some "flatlander" situations that may be impacted by a "minimum valley clearance height".

Not trying to argue or defend myself, just adding specific info to the discussion.


Charlie, There are two points I would make: By my proposal, if there is an out to lower ground (300 ft lower), then that is not a violation. Second, by my proposal, the CD always has discretion. To the extent that this is a standard safe route, as you describe it, your CD would not penalize you for unsafe flying.


I should also add, if this is a ridge flying scenario, you probably aren't stopping to turn. So by my protocol, there is not a problem flying through that area or even landing at the hospital unless you were doing a thermalling turn below 300 ft.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Melting Deck Plates Muddle - V-22 on LHD deck.... Mike Naval Aviation 79 December 14th 09 07:00 PM
hard wax application Tuno Soaring 20 April 24th 08 03:04 PM
winter is hard. Bruce Greef Soaring 2 July 3rd 06 06:31 AM
It ain't that hard Gregg Ballou Soaring 8 March 23rd 05 02:18 AM
Who says flying is hard? Roger Long Piloting 9 November 1st 04 09:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.