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
  #251  
Old February 8th 18, 03:39 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Karl Striedieck[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 146
Default Hard Deck

For this hard deck scheme to work (land off airport if below a certain agl altitude) a major penalty would need to be imposed for not doing so. Simply "landing" the pilot at the low spot would give the same score as climbing away and returning to the evening meal at the airport. Who's going to pass up a climb out marked by a bird, vario or whatever thus avoiding all the dangers of an outlanding when there is no advantage to doing so?

KS

  #252  
Old February 8th 18, 04:18 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default Hard Deck

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


Yes, John I know that. I wasn't responding to Jon's post about crossing the lake (We were typing at the same time I guess). Landing out surely always requires a place that's suitable.

Jumping to the problem of what to do about Truckee... How about simply using a 30 mi finish cylinder. That would allow us to have a full day racing task there. If you can't get home due to west wind washout, you just land Minden or Carson without any disrupting effect on the scoresheet and without any daredevil temptations. The tugs at Minden would be set on ready alert for late hour missions or next morning missions if you bring your toothbrush. Or, for the crewed amongst us, crews might even be pre-dispatched to Minden. Just a thought.
  #253  
Old February 8th 18, 04:26 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Stu
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10
Default Hard Deck

OK, this thread has been well beat to death by several thoughtful writers. It is time to hear from the other pilots that fly contests.
I have been flying contests since 1987. Only fly one regional contest per year and have done fairly well in the rankings. I would estimate that I get low (under 1,200 ft.) maybe once every other contest. Don’t think I have ever had a save under 500 ft., but am comfortable climbing out from 600 ft. (given very good landing options). I would agree with those that state there is no advantage to getting low and having a save – it usually costs significant extra time to climb out because the low saves are not normally the best thermals. I would say that I have won several contests because I was able to climb out from low saves (in fairly strong thermals).

I do believe that I would fly slightly more conservative if there were a Hard Deck, however, I think there would be situations where I may still get low. Once low, then the Hard Deck would not change my thermaling at or below the Hard Deck. If I broke the hard deck I would still thermal at a level that I would be comfortable. How low I would thermal would depend on the landing options but the Hard Deck would in no way affect my decision.
So in a nut shell, I do not support a Hard Deck. Let’s hear form other pilots that regularly fly contests.

Stu Larimore
2Z

  #254  
Old February 8th 18, 06:20 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Branko Stojkovic
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 42
Default Hard Deck

I agree with Stu.

Branko Stojkovic
XYU
  #255  
Old February 8th 18, 07:07 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dennis Vreeken
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 29
Default Hard Deck

Agree with Stu . Well said
  #256  
Old February 8th 18, 08:06 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 23
Default Hard Deck

In any competitive sport the rules structure selects for participants with specific skill sets. Soaring is no different. Paragraph 1.1 in the SSA rules for national soaring competitions, states that the purpose of the competition is to select a national champion, rank the contestants and select a team for international competition.
Times have changed and perhaps we should revise the mission statement to include a focus on safety measures and compassionate tasking to enabling everyone to compete and have fun But as it stands, it is abundantly logical to adopt the FAI international rules for our national soaring competitions.. I know everyone is sick of SF’s relentless promoting of this concept but he is right.
Hard decks, short tasks, big circles and safety finishes are great for most of the pilots, crews, and organizers but are unlikely to produce a world champion anytime soon.
OLC camps, safaris and regional competitions are excellent places to tinker with the rules and are where most pilots (myself included) should be flying anyway.

Dale Bush
  #257  
Old February 8th 18, 02:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 61
Default Hard Deck

As a competition pilot and director, I totally agree. Best intentions, many times have unintended consequences.

In Italy many years ago a high-finish was assigned in a flatland competition area. A few pilots did ballistic pull-ups on the line, while looking only at their altimeter. One of them had a half-turn spin on the line as a consequence.
As a Director, I only assign high-finishes when two local conditions are present:
- a smallish airport, not allowing mass finishes;
- terrain elevation, surrounding the airport, may involve very low flying over significantly populated areas.

I guess more rules needs much more briefing information, anticipation of problems, education, practice.

The hard-deck may be bringing this kind of unsafe behavior at the deck altitude. Yes, pilots will try anything to avoid crossing the deck.


thanks for the very interesting discussion to everyone!

Aldo Cernezzi
www.voloavela.it



On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5,


John,


like it or not/agree or not,


i also see pilots cirlcing at 550 feet, pulling and milking like hell,
maneuvering aggressively, close to stall trying to stop themselves from
getting DQ'd by nicking,or sliding down into the hard-deck, further provoking
an impending stall close to terrain. i know, it sounds absurd, but people
will do it, flat land or not.



it's those unintended consequences... i think the hard deck creates some
problems, and solves none.


ND


  #258  
Old February 8th 18, 05:44 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
ND
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default Hard Deck

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 9:39:29 PM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
For this hard deck scheme to work (land off airport if below a certain agl altitude) a major penalty would need to be imposed for not doing so. Simply "landing" the pilot at the low spot would give the same score as climbing away and returning to the evening meal at the airport. Who's going to pass up a climb out marked by a bird, vario or whatever thus avoiding all the dangers of an outlanding when there is no advantage to doing so?

KS


my point exactly Karl! the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs.
  #259  
Old February 8th 18, 06:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default Hard Deck

If the idea is to discourage low saves because of the potential for stall/spin at a low altitude and not wanting to encourage risk for points. Fine we are trying to save lives. After the scored landout the pilot figures to dig out and fly home. While trying the glider augurs in, ship destroyed and pilot dead. How is this different than taking the same risk for points is on the contest and if after the scored landout the pilot decides to take the same risk to get home but this is okay because they died trying to avoid inconvenience and not gather a few points. The death is not on the contest but the PIC's poor decision? Taking risks is always relative and even with data the number of deaths from botching a low save are so few compared to other aspects of the flight (starts and finishes) trying to regulate for such low probability is a waste of effort.

It seems like the pilots were injured screwing up the landings. If we want safer contests we should stop debating rules to stop minuscule aspects of the sport and put real effort into teaching pilots how to safely land the glider in unfamiliar territory.

Too often pilots land at home and roll up to the trailer for convenience. Maybe landing in such a way to simulate an off field landing and suffer the inconvenience of having to get the ship with a golf cart might help. A club mate trying to save time decided to land long and roll back to the departure. Glidervended up across the raid in a ditch. No damage or injury but prevenatable and stupid.

Every time we fly we are training ourselves how to act in a situation. Convenience should NEVER enter into our decision making process but when pilots routinely land at home with convenience in mind it becomes part of the equation.

We, the Soaring community, need more and better training much more then rules.
  #260  
Old February 8th 18, 08:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Hard Deck

OK.......simple example.......
The Elmira/HHSC "Snowbird" contest.
No cross country.
The rules are mostly based on "exact time" and "spot landing/parking".
Some minor bonus points for altitude gain (although this may mean pilots are doing spins back down to gain more accumulated altitude points, which may be a tie breaker....yes, I have done this.)

Over many years (decades) this has been fine tuned, emphasizing "energy management" to cover the first 2 goals (time and spot landing/parking).

Yes, I am biased......having done well over the years, my group (Valley Soaring in Middletown, NY) as well as personal.
Interesting to see the peeps that are used to, "land wherever, roll to wherever, push it to where we want" vs., "practice putting into a field" which to me is a major part of the goal.
I believe many "long time flyers" as well as CFIG-s at our field drill this into students and above, all the time.

When I was an active CFI-G, part of the private test was, "landing, stopping within 200', but not past, of a predetermined mark".
I read that as, "I could land rather fast, roll 1/2 mile, stop within 200' but don't go by it".
Sorta poor training.

You can search for the Snowbird rules, there should be a link to the "landing portion" for scoring.
Should give some here some pause.

While waiting late to decide to land is poor judgement, not really knowing how to put the aircraft "exactly" where you want when you want is a major recipe for broken bits.
Taken from someone that has helped FIX broken bits later as well as watch pilots wait until their broken bits mend (assuming they survived in the first place, been there as well.....sigh....).

I won't weigh in on whether any "hard deck" will Improve crash/death numbers, I will say it won't really make a difference to me.
I have been "too low before", but no clue on when that decision could have been made. At least a few times, crap happened with weather/geography that I totally missed and I was in a bad spot.
Points didn't matter, not breaking the sailplane was paramount. Sailplane not broken, worst I had was soiled underwear.

So please, read the scoring for the HHSC Snowbird, ask yourself, "How do I think I would do?".
As an aside, on a good weekend, if you are NOT scoring around 950+ points/flight, you are looking at 4th or lower.



PS, I should answer the question in another active thread, last 20 or so contest years (went up from 10 since I have not been real active recently), worst glider damage was torn gear door hinges in a 20 landing in a potato field. Glider was flying the next day. Foliage stains are not counted as damage.
Hoping I don't do anything real stupid in the foreseeable future......doing my best, hoping to guide others along the way.
 




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 11:14 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.