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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 00:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote: 01-- Zero One wrote: There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk posited. NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful recoveries? Sounds like hair-splitting to me. No Andy, it's not. I have recovered from an unintentional spin entry, with water, at 400 to 500 feet. I know I wouldn't want to be a position of trying to do the same at under 200 feet. We do have several recent NTSB reports of gliders spinning in following 50 foot gate finishes. Given that a large percentage (possibly the majority) of contests in the past 2 years have used the allegedly dangerous finish cylinders, one would expect to see a statistically significant number of finish cylinder related accidents. Where are the NTSB reports? Marc |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message news I have recovered from an unintentional spin entry, with water, at 400 to 500 feet. So if we follow this line of logic then we should make the finish altitude a minimum of 2000 feet to protect all of the pilots that can't manage their energy correctly. That way we can protect them from themselves. It would also allow the other guy that you spin into a chance to safely exit their glider. Casey Lenox KC Phoenix |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
At 04:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Andy Blackburn wrote: At 00:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote: 01-- Zero One wrote: There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk posited. NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful recoveries? Sounds like hair-splitting to me. No Andy, it's not. I have recovered from an unintentional spin entry, with water, at 400 to 500 feet. I know I wouldn't want to be a position of trying to do the same at under 200 feet. We do have several recent NTSB reports of gliders spinning in following 50 foot gate finishes. Given that a large percentage (possibly the majority) of contests in the past 2 years have used the allegedly dangerous finish cylinders, one would expect to see a statistically significant number of finish cylinder related accidents. Where are the NTSB reports? Marc My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide. The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder for me. 9B |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Blackburn wrote:
My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide. The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder for me. Never mind, I keep forgetting to just stay out of this. I'd have a bit more respect for your position if y'all would quit trying to convince people its more dangerous to finish at 500 feet than at 50, but it really doesn't matter. *I* have margin for error at 500 feet, I have none at 50 or 100, tis adequate reason for me, clearly it isn't enough for you, 'nuf said. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Marc,
The finish line is a magnifying glass. The sins committed there are repeated throughout the soaring day. Only difference is, everyone sees and comments on them. The same and new errors will be made in the finish cylinder, but out of sight of the peanut gallery. This isn't safer; it just seems safer - a three-monkeys approach to safety. (And yes, while you have more altitude under you, you've also increased the likelihood and severity of collision.) In a previous post, I pointed out how little it costs in points to opt out of a 50-foot finish. Eight points max. On the other hand, the cylinder represents some known problems (head-down piloting) and unknown problems (traffic separation at the cylinder wall and procedures after the clock stops). Just because something "seems" safer, doesn't mean it is. And while we blunt skulls may seem unreasonable in our commitment to the status quo, some of us would rather deal with the risks we understand than journey off into the unknown. I and others have pointed out, in this and other threads, some of those variables. I've seen mixed results in how these questions have been addressed. One thing is certain... any finish is a high-density, high-risk environment, and my own experience is that I spend far too much of my time looking at instruments while approaching the cylinder for my own comfort (and for yours). When I call four miles, I want my head out of the cockpit 99% percent of the time. This simply isn't realistic with the cylinder. We need to fully understand where the benefit of lower density outweighs the effects of greater pilot distraction. A blue day AST or TAT raises the potential density of the finish, and thus the importance of heads up piloting. I could be converted. But it's clear the cylinder hasn't been adequately vetted. There's too large a penalty for rolling finishes, which means pilots will be trying all sorts of tricks to clip the bottom, flying at low speeds into high-speed, high-density traffic. And there's no standardization for pattern entry based on energy after entering the cylinder. For instance, at the Std Class Nats in Montague I didn't begin dumping water until after I pierced the finish cylinder. After finishing, I would pull up to 800 feet agl, open the dumps, and wander around the vicinity of the IP until I reached pattern altitude. After all, why should I take the performance penalty of dumping water if I have several minutes after the finish to lighten the glider before landing? Multiply this by 10, introduce variables in speed, altitude, wing loading, and pattern planning, and the IP becomes an increasingly dangerous environment. Where does this leave the guy who has difficulty judging whether he ought to light the burners or break off for a rolling finish? Or a pilot who cannot execute a brief 2-g pull and 180 degree turn to final? How will they deal with inserting themselves into a much more dynamic pattern with several other gliders, with lots of opportunity to raise the level of confusion? The cylinder has its uses, especially for open-ended MATs where racing is likely to take place in all four quadrants, but there's much homework yet to be done. Yes, you remove one highly visible maneuver - one the vast the majority of pilots can safely and successfully execute and introuduce a fistfull of unknowns that will affect everyone. Don't like the finish line? Can't judge energy? Can't execute the manuever? Don't light the burners. Why must I be exposed to what I believe is a potentially dangerous environment without choice because a handful of pilots are promulgating a "solution" that hasn't yet received due diligence (amply demonstrated by its proponents' inability to adequately address well-reasoned safety concerns)? I suppose the thing that irks me is not so much that this is a "lowest common denominator" solution, rather that it will have very little impact on safety. We'll improve things for a few pilots, yet expose all pilots to other safety concerns. And while we've netted a few hundred feet of cushion beneath those pilots who need it, that doesn't improve their ability to stay out of trouble elsewhere on course. It simply defers ignorance out of sight of the home drome. By the way, when was the last time you saw someone thermalling half a mile from the finish line? Or intentionally busting a gaggle at 140 knots? These aren't unreasonable scenarios and require only the same lack of judgement displayed by pilots who can't navigate a finish line. Remember the start gate? Thermalling wasn't allowed. Why? Doesn't the finish cylinder raise exactly the same concerns? So why wasn't this addressed? Why aren't YOU asking these questions? After all, your bent is toward making the sport safer, right? Safety is my primary concern. Which is to say, if I believed the cylinder was inherently safer, I'd be writing in equal volume in favor. But it's clearly not the cure-all some propose. At best, not yet. OC |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
wrote: Marc, The finish line is a magnifying glass. The sins committed there are repeated throughout the soaring day. Only difference is, everyone sees and comments on them. The same and new errors will be made in the finish cylinder, but out of sight of the peanut gallery. This isn't safer; it just seems safer - a three-monkeys approach to safety. (And yes, while you have more altitude under you, you've also increased the likelihood and severity of collision.) In a previous post, I pointed out how little it costs in points to opt out of a 50-foot finish. Eight points max. On the other hand, the cylinder represents some known problems (head-down piloting) and unknown problems (traffic separation at the cylinder wall and procedures after the clock stops). Just because something "seems" safer, doesn't mean it is. And while we blunt skulls may seem unreasonable in our commitment to the status quo, some of us would rather deal with the risks we understand than journey off into the unknown. I and others have pointed out, in this and other threads, some of those variables. I've seen mixed results in how these questions have been addressed. One thing is certain... any finish is a high-density, high-risk environment, and my own experience is that I spend far too much of my time looking at instruments while approaching the cylinder for my own comfort (and for yours). When I call four miles, I want my head out of the cockpit 99% percent of the time. This simply isn't realistic with the cylinder. We need to fully understand where the benefit of lower density outweighs the effects of greater pilot distraction. A blue day AST or TAT raises the potential density of the finish, and thus the importance of heads up piloting. I could be converted. But it's clear the cylinder hasn't been adequately vetted. There's too large a penalty for rolling finishes, which means pilots will be trying all sorts of tricks to clip the bottom, flying at low speeds into high-speed, high-density traffic. And there's no standardization for pattern entry based on energy after entering the cylinder. For instance, at the Std Class Nats in Montague I didn't begin dumping water until after I pierced the finish cylinder. After finishing, I would pull up to 800 feet agl, open the dumps, and wander around the vicinity of the IP until I reached pattern altitude. After all, why should I take the performance penalty of dumping water if I have several minutes after the finish to lighten the glider before landing? Multiply this by 10, introduce variables in speed, altitude, wing loading, and pattern planning, and the IP becomes an increasingly dangerous environment. Where does this leave the guy who has difficulty judging whether he ought to light the burners or break off for a rolling finish? Or a pilot who cannot execute a brief 2-g pull and 180 degree turn to final? How will they deal with inserting themselves into a much more dynamic pattern with several other gliders, with lots of opportunity to raise the level of confusion? The cylinder has its uses, especially for open-ended MATs where racing is likely to take place in all four quadrants, but there's much homework yet to be done. Yes, you remove one highly visible maneuver - one the vast the majority of pilots can safely and successfully execute and introuduce a fistfull of unknowns that will affect everyone. Don't like the finish line? Can't judge energy? Can't execute the manuever? Don't light the burners. Why must I be exposed to what I believe is a potentially dangerous environment without choice because a handful of pilots are promulgating a "solution" that hasn't yet received due diligence (amply demonstrated by its proponents' inability to adequately address well-reasoned safety concerns)? I suppose the thing that irks me is not so much that this is a "lowest common denominator" solution, rather that it will have very little impact on safety. We'll improve things for a few pilots, yet expose all pilots to other safety concerns. And while we've netted a few hundred feet of cushion beneath those pilots who need it, that doesn't improve their ability to stay out of trouble elsewhere on course. It simply defers ignorance out of sight of the home drome. By the way, when was the last time you saw someone thermalling half a mile from the finish line? Or intentionally busting a gaggle at 140 knots? These aren't unreasonable scenarios and require only the same lack of judgement displayed by pilots who can't navigate a finish line. Remember the start gate? Thermalling wasn't allowed. Why? Doesn't the finish cylinder raise exactly the same concerns? So why wasn't this addressed? Why aren't YOU asking these questions? After all, your bent is toward making the sport safer, right? Safety is my primary concern. Which is to say, if I believed the cylinder was inherently safer, I'd be writing in equal volume in favor. But it's clearly not the cure-all some propose. At best, not yet. OC |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk posited. Please provide us with the details of these finish cylinder accidents. I'm not aware of any. JJ |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
JJ,
I am going to respond privately to you with specifics. I apologize to the group for 'teasing' you with a statement and then refusing to reveal the information that proves it. Larry "John Sinclair" wrote in message : There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk posited. Please provide us with the details of these finish cylinder accidents. I'm not aware of any. JJ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
01-- Zero One wrote:
I am going to respond privately to you with specifics. I apologize to the group for 'teasing' you with a statement and then refusing to reveal the information that proves it. Of course you will sanitize them and then let the heathen feast on them too, I suppose? Jack |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finish Gate Accident no. 2 | [email protected] | Soaring | 50 | April 2nd 05 06:58 AM |
Visulalizing the Finish Cylinder | [email protected] | Soaring | 44 | March 25th 05 02:10 PM |
Why does the Sporting code require "Goal" to be a finish point??? | Mark Zivley | Soaring | 31 | October 18th 04 10:31 PM |
Carbon Fiber - Achieving Glossy Finish w/o GelCoat | RKT | Home Built | 7 | March 8th 04 06:15 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |