500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll

"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message
news:nEqab.42131$n94.18608@fed1read04...

I suggest that glider pilots are, as a group, no where near as skilled
as
those pilots and to permit glider pilots to execute down to the deck
high
speed finishes at an airport does seem imprudent. The simple fact is we
legislate good judgment all over the place and some glider pilots do not
exercise good judgment.

Ivan

Hmmmm....I see no Ivan Kahn on the US Pilot Ranking List which means
either
you have never raced or maybe you're simply not giving us your real name.
Sounds like you must know a lot about the skill level of racing pilots
though. Too bad you won't be allowed to vote in the poll.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix



I am not on the list and if racing pilots are so adverse to engaging in safe
operations you never will. One need not be reckless to engage in fair,
honest and challenging competition. And by the way, "racing" pilots only
account for about 3.5% of SSA membership. And so perhaps you should avoid
****ing off the 96+% upon whom you rely to support your racing efforts by
running the competitions, and from whom you might hope to one day encourage
to join the ranks of "racing pilots" to keep that aspect of our sport alive.

And yes, it is
Ivan Kahn
ATP, CFI, SSAI

I am happy to let your comments speak for themselves.

"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message
news:CmLbb.796$hp5.153@fed1read04...
I've tried being reasonable, I've tried being logical, I've tried being
persuasive to the "96+%" but the final line is that there are many of
those
folks that obviously know so much that none of those ways apply.

You expounded upon the idea that we racing pilots are "no where near as
skilled" as aerobatic pilots. In the first place that is an absurd
comparison. In the second place having never raced yourself you must
little
to no personal knowledge of racing pilots so it makes your statement
baseless. Although I have hundreds of aerobatic hours in both powered and
glider aircraft I would never dream of getting on an aerobatic newsgroup
and
start tossing out opinions of how dangerous competitive aerobatics is
having
never competed.

If it is not clear, I am sick and tired of folks such as you acting like
we
racing pilots are somehow beholding to you. As far as I'm concerned it is
time to begin the process of separating US sailplane racing from the rest
of
it. Then you can have your own little world and legislate away.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

"BMacLean" wrote in message .. .
They could drive slower, have mandatory car separation and have to use
blinkers to pass. And to make horse racing safer, they could stop putting
those little men on the horses backs. But to be really safe, they just
shouldn't race!

I guess if you have nothing to say you rely on pointless (and humourless) satire.

Tom

So now we are "adrenaline junkies". Give me a break. I like to race,
fly fast, fly far, and when it's safe, fly low. Some people like to
race cars, or ski on glaciers, or whatever. No-one makes them do it at
gunpoint. But why in soaring do some pilots feel compelled to force
other pilots to meet their comfort level? In NO OTHER COMPETIVE SPORT
is the nature of the competition dumbed down to the level of the
weakest competitor, on the contrary, it is supposed to be a challenge
to perform well.

You are an "adrenaline junky" whether you like it or not. That is the
hormone that gets released in these circumstances (it sure as hell
isn't melatonine!). If you didn't get it you'ld say "that sure is
boring" and go do something else. And tell me why I should give you a
break; you don't give me any. You clearly don't like the word "junky",
but I think it applies to you in the context of your previous posts.
You prefer the word "thrill". So what, the result is the same.
Hopefully, your instinct of self preservation kicks in before you kill
yourself. It's well known in sky diving, for instance, that there is
that select group that likes the thrill of the "low pull", some of
which end up killing themselves. I don't know your age, but I would
guess that it is 30ish; I happen to be a grandfather and fall into the
"old pilot" category. I have had more than one near death experience,
which tends to temper one's adventurism. I have had my share of
experiences including mountain climbing (rock & ice), SCUBA diving, &
car racing (besides flying). I don't happen to think that soaring is
being "dumbed down"; maybe it is being "dumbed up". Contest are won
out on course, not on the final glide. An optimized task will have you
coming in at best glide speed. If you aren't aware of this I would
suggest reading Moffet's book "Winning on the Wind", it could correct
some misconceptions that you appear to have.


You want to finish high, go ahead. But don't complain if I finish
lower and faster. And I won't complain if I misjudge and land short.

I won't complain unless you hit my parked glider like that one guy
did. I would even help you retrieve your glider.

Tom

In article ,
(Tom Seim) wrote:

Contest are won
out on course, not on the final glide. An optimized task will have you
coming in at best glide speed. If you aren't aware of this I would
suggest reading Moffet's book "Winning on the Wind", it could correct
some misconceptions that you appear to have.

That's only true if your last climb rate was 0 fpm, or you hit cloudbase
with just barely enough height to get home. If your "last thermal" is
high enough and not too far from home then you should keep climbing
until you can set a Macready number for the final glide equal to your
climb rate at the point you leave the thermal. So if your last thermal
is giving you 500 fpm then it makes complete sense to come home at Mc=5,
if you can make it all the way to the finish line at that speed.

-- Bruce

John

I have flown quite a few contest days with the 2 mile 500 foot finish.

Here are my comments:

1. On a purely emotional level, I miss (and I'm sure the spectators
do too) the 50 foot speed pass finish line. I know that you can still
do one after you cross the ring but in practice most people just come
in and land.

2. On a practical basis, it leads to more heads down flying. Most
people do a 50 foot speed pass finish completely heads up (maybe an
airspeed check once in a while). The ring puts your head in the
cockpit. The optimum finish is still at 501 feet and max airspeed.
You just can't judge this 2 miles out without a lot of heads down
work.

3. On a global perspective, this rule is just a bandaid that
necessitates more bandaids. I did not like it when Charlie started
adding 3 minutes to your time for rolling finishes under the ring and
now you are adding another bandaid by saying you don't get speed
points if you go under the ring. The bandaids go on and on. What
about the contestant that has the fastest speed, crosses the ring at
110 knots but does it at 499 feet. Distance points only? The harsh
100 point turnpoint penalty had to have its own bandaid for missing
the turnpoint by 15 feet, that will have to happen here too. The
bandaids keep going on and on for the finish ring.

As you can see I am against the finish ring.

I do, however propose a different solution for low energy finishes.

Bring the exciting heads up speed pass finish line back and solve the
low energy problem with some sort of finish line groundspeed minimum
or minimum altitude to achieve after the finish line. Don't have
harsh point penalty steps in the solution either. After all the main
reason people are tempted to do a low energy finish is the harsh point
penalty associated with a landout. Maybe thats what should be
addressed!

Just my 2 cents

Dale Kramer
K1

I've been following all these responses with interest, but I feel we
have lost some of the forest in looking at the leaves on the trees.

The point where a glider race ends is arbitrary. We can end the race
-- calculate speed and give speed points -- for any landing within a 5
mile circle of the home airport. We can end the race as we do now, at
the airport fence. We can end the race 500 feet up. It's the same for
everybody. Where we end the race has no effect at all on the
competitive, soaring aspect. Adjust your arrival margin accordingly.

Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?

John Cochrane

John wrote.
Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?

I agree completely, John. Now lets talk about the penalty for arriving at 490
feet? Distance only? Isn't that a bit harsh?


JJ Sinclair

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message

Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?

I agree completely, John. Now lets talk about the penalty for arriving at 490
feet? Distance only? Isn't that a bit harsh?

JJ Sinclair

Well, one answer is, "what is the penalty for finishing at -10 feet
now?" It's even harsher! Moving the race up 500 feet has reduced, not
increased, the penalty for arriving 10 feet too low.

But if this is the only objection, I would be delighted to support a
graduated penalty. For example, it could be distance points only below
400 feet, then x points per foot below 600 feet. This is a minor issue
compared to the major one, do we do it at all.

The question of graduated vs. sharp penalties is an interesting (and
separate) issue. Having decided on some limit, including max start
altitude, start radius, prohibited airspace, turnpoint radius, etc.,
as well as a finish height, does it make more sense to write a simple
sharp rule, and let pilots judge how much of a margin they want to
leave, or is it best to have graduated penalties so that pilots who
don't leave enough margin are not too severely affected by
"accidents"?

I prefer simple rules: Over max start, one fix in a prohibited area,
etc. and you get the penalty, period. Wise pilots leave some margin (I
do beleive in pilot judgment, especially when only points are at
stake!) But I am in a minority, and therefore the rules contain a
mind-boggling set of provisions for graduated penalties; so many
points per foot for quite some distance, and then the full penalty.

Why don't I like it? Nobody can remember all these penalties, and once
they are there, using them becomes part of contest strategy. It has
happened to me that it was advantageous to claim a turnpoint while
taking the 100 point penalty rather than ignore it. (I was 50 feet
below ingalls on a MAT. Just couldn't get there!) This took knowing
the rule, and a lot of quick calculation before turning in the landing
card. Thus, the rules have become much more complex, and really
serious pilots cannot ignore the complexity.

The only point of the graduated penalty is to encourage pilots to cut
it as close as possible, e.g. hang in the start gaggle at 4999', glued
to the altimeter, knowing 5001' is a small penalty not zero for the
day, rather than hang in the start gaggle at a more comfortable 4700',
knowing the simple rule that one fix over 5000' ends the day and the
contest.

The same point goes on the finish altitude. Do we want to encourage
people to really cut it close with a graduated penalty (needing lots
of heads down time), or do we want to say "look, there's a cliff at
500 feet, so come in at 700 or 800, ok?" Is encouraging people to cut
it close important at all, or important enough that it's worth
clogging the rules with numbers?

Everyone keeps saying "we need simple rules!" Well, here is a place to
get them: throw out all the graduated penalties and set your own
limits. Or do people not really mean it about simple rules?

Again this is not a strong opinion, nor a terribly important issue.
The opposite end is actually self-serving; I'm really good at math and
willing to spend the time to figure out how to game all these little
rules for advantage. I just don't think that situation is good for the
sport.

Still, if a graduated penalty is all it takes to put in a high point
before finish, count me in!

John Cochrane
BB

Everyone keeps saying "we need simple rules!" Well, here is a place to
get them: throw out all the graduated penalties and set your own
limits. Or do people not really mean it about simple rules?


Or not have any new rules at all!


John Cochrane
BB