Visulalizing the Finish Cylinder

9B,
Does this mean your a convert? Can I take you off my
Neanderthal list? We don't have to hug, do we?
:) JJ

At 18:00 21 March 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 17:30 21 March 2005, wrote:
Hi Papa 3,
There is something else going on is US racing that
hasn't beed
mentioned. We're not calling the old Assigned task
very much, any more;
Parowan last year----5 TAT's and only 1 AST
Standard's ' ' ----2 MAT's and 2 TAT's
Seniors this year-----2 AST's and 4 TAT's

The vast majority will be coming from other than a
known last turn
point. They may be coming from all directions in the
case of the MAT
and from a wide quadrant in the case of the TAT, depending
on its
radius and distance from home plate. If for no other
reason, this makes
it a 'No Brainer' to use the finish cylinder.

Your last two posts are your best arguments to-date
JJ. Perversely it's less
about inherent safety of one finish versus the other
and more about simple
practicality of making it work with contemporary task
calling.

A gate doesn't make sense if you can't define a finish
course line to the
gate so we're not going to see many gate finishes if
people don't call
suitable tasks. The mixed class tasking at regionals
also makes it harder
to use anything but the common denominator finish.


So we are either left calling only ASTs and TATs with
decent final legs, or
having a set of steering turnpoints at the end of every
task for all classes.
Only the truly dedicated will adopt these additional
tasking constraints just
to have a finish gate.

So you see you don't really need to kill the gate because
it's already dead.
Of course beating a dead horse is a time-honored tradition
here.

9B

At 23:30 21 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
9B,
Does this mean your a convert? Can I take you off my
Neanderthal list? We don't have to hug, do we?
:) JJ

I think I still have a bicameral mind - not full conscious,
let alone self-
actualized enough for a hug. Uggh, snort, grr.

I'll just have to do my low pass 1 mi out and pull
up to nick the bottom of
the cylinder. Man the ball turrets!

;-)

9B

JJ, I'm genuinely surprised. You're getting hornery in your old age!
And maybe just a little too uncivil... ;-)

Let's get one thing clear. I've asked, repeatedly, for you to explain
how we're to manage traffic on the face of cylinder during ASTs. And
you've offered NOTHING specific, except to imply that I simply don't
get it. I am raising valid concerns, have put some small effort into
explaining my concerns in prose and pictures, and I'm getting dogmatc
replies. Which tells me that there aren't well-reasoned answers, yet.
They'll come, I'm sure, but apparently not until we've scared ourselves
silly a few times as we learn the disadvantages of the cylinder by
trial and error. Note that other than Montague last year (only 13
competitors), I'm not aware of a cylinder being used for non MAT tasks
at the Stds, 15s, 18, or Open Nats... that is, we haven't tested it in
conditions where a dozen or more gliders of equal performance might
approach the cyliner in a very short span of time.

I accept that you've established yourself as the Cylindrical Champion
and thus accept a certain amount of righteous indignation that I and
others might prefer and justify demon finish lines. But now you need to
convince a few of us who have valid concerns about high/low speed
conflicts that these have been thought through and adequately
addressed.

As I noted earlier, I see the dynamics of the cylinder as very much
similar to the old start gate. Worse, since the effective gate size is
smaller and the wing level runs much longer (at least in the start gate
you were able to scan traffic for several minutes while circling at the
IP prior to your run - even so, it was a anxious half minute in the
gate).


C'mon JJ. Give me some substance. Show me some real numbers. Use my
valid assumptions to prove me wrong instead of offering up an idyllic
paint by numbers picture.

Cheers,

Chris O'Callaghan

How about you going flying a little bit more instead of running dry
arguments on a newsgroup?

--
Bert Willing

ASW20 "TW"


a écrit dans le message de news:
...
JJ, I'm genuinely surprised. You're getting hornery in your old age!
And maybe just a little too uncivil... ;-)

Let's get one thing clear. I've asked, repeatedly, for you to explain
how we're to manage traffic on the face of cylinder during ASTs. And
you've offered NOTHING specific, except to imply that I simply don't
get it. I am raising valid concerns, have put some small effort into
explaining my concerns in prose and pictures, and I'm getting dogmatc
replies. Which tells me that there aren't well-reasoned answers, yet.
They'll come, I'm sure, but apparently not until we've scared ourselves
silly a few times as we learn the disadvantages of the cylinder by
trial and error. Note that other than Montague last year (only 13
competitors), I'm not aware of a cylinder being used for non MAT tasks
at the Stds, 15s, 18, or Open Nats... that is, we haven't tested it in
conditions where a dozen or more gliders of equal performance might
approach the cyliner in a very short span of time.

I accept that you've established yourself as the Cylindrical Champion
and thus accept a certain amount of righteous indignation that I and
others might prefer and justify demon finish lines. But now you need to
convince a few of us who have valid concerns about high/low speed
conflicts that these have been thought through and adequately
addressed.

As I noted earlier, I see the dynamics of the cylinder as very much
similar to the old start gate. Worse, since the effective gate size is
smaller and the wing level runs much longer (at least in the start gate
you were able to scan traffic for several minutes while circling at the
IP prior to your run - even so, it was a anxious half minute in the
gate).


C'mon JJ. Give me some substance. Show me some real numbers. Use my
valid assumptions to prove me wrong instead of offering up an idyllic
paint by numbers picture.

Cheers,

Chris O'Callaghan

Sorry,

don't have time to participate in ongoing discussions, but I did pen
another picture to help JJ get visualize how a rotating gate works
better than a fixed one. I know due consideration isn't the theme of
this thread, but thought I'd offer it up anyway. The link won't be
active until late this afternoon, when I have a chance to upload the
image.

http://users.adelphia.net/~cocallag/...inggatePNG.png

At 01:00 22 March 2005, wrote:
JJ, I'm genuinely surprised. You're getting hornery
in your old age!
And maybe just a little too uncivil... ;-)

Yep, I do get a little honery when I see a proven safer
way, ignored. Old ways die hard, Chris, remember who
called all the nats, last year. He loves the finish
line and he loved the start gate before that. Why did
we drop it? Because it was a cumbersome dinosaur and
GPS gave us a better way.

We score the finish line by GPS, right now. So why
are we still doing it? It server as nothing more than
a starting point for our low altitude air show, one
that violates FAR's, also.

You want numbers, try these; 5 vs. 0 ------------five
accidents in the finish gate and zero in the finish
cylinder.

I give no respect to your concerns about conflicts
at the edge of a 1 mile cylinder because it is nothing
short of redicules to suggest that the separation is
anything less than 10 time greater than what exists
in the corner of the finish line.

There is a better way,
JJ

At 18:30 22 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:

It serves as nothing more than
a starting point for our low altitude air show, one
that violates FAR's, also.


Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
also violates the FARs
unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
the way to to the
landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
nose-up climb
upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
'aerobatics'.

JJ will be insepcting all GPS traces at Montague to
insure violaters get DNCs
for the day. Right?

9B

, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
also violates the FARs
unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
the way to to the
landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
nose-up climb
upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
'aerobatics'.

There is no FAR that says you can't go below 500 feet
anywhere as long as you are in the act of landing.
If I leave the 1 mile cylinder at or below 500 feet,
you can bet I'm in the act of landing and will do so,
just as soon as I get to the airport.

JJ will be insepcting all GPS traces at Montague to
insure violaters get DNCs
for the day. Right?

No, but you bring up a good point. Heaven forbid, should
we have an accident, we are producing a complete log
of everything we are doing, complete with altitude,
time and exact position. The feds won't even have to
bring out their tape measure, will they?
JJ

At 22:00 22 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Don't forget that JJ established that the 500' cylinder
also violates the FARs
unless you carry enough energy to stay above 500' all
the way to to the
landing pattern IP. And if you do more than a 30-degree
nose-up climb
upon finishing you'll need to be at 1,500' AGL for
'aerobatics'.

There is no FAR that says you can't go below 500 feet
anywhere as long as you are in the act of landing.
If I leave the 1 mile cylinder at or below 500 feet,
you can bet I'm in the act of landing and will do so,
just as soon as I get to the airport.

Whoa just a minute there partner, the distance between
the cylinder edge
and the pattern IP is no more a part of the landing
pattern than the path
through the finish gate is. If the logic is 'I'm low
so I must be landing', that
applies to the gate as well. So if we are going to
be literal about the FARs
then you are not in the act of landing until you enter
the official pattern,
everything else is flying cross country below 500'
- including the path from
the cylinder to the airport. QED.

The feds won't even have to
bring out their tape measure, will they?

Talk about adding insult to injury - let's hope not.
If you are serious about
your interpretation of the FARs then you'll need to
be prepared to enforce
penalties on anyone you dips below 500' before entering
the pattern. You
could be set up for a liability issue if you don't.


9B

9B,
Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make
a straight in landing. I Disagree.

Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention
of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500
feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't
want to justify to the federalies.
JJ