Hard Deck

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:01:01 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.

The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.

Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.

These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.

Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.

Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.

Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.

John Cochrane

I invite you to apply hard deck logic to this flight. i'm genuinely curious to hear how a hard deck would handle this sort of situation:
https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2....tId=1097283864

Look at the KML file. i'm talking specifically about the final leg. i was ridge soaring the lower step of stone mountain on the last leg of the race. had i slowed down and taken time to get to the higher step, (no reason to, the lower step was working fine)i would not have won the day, and by extension, the nationals. i was perhaps 600 feet above the valley floor. sometimes less. constantly watching the fields go by, revising landing options every 30 seconds.

this was perfectly safe, and if i hadn't done it i wouldn't have won the contest. it's a situation that the hard deck wouldn't allow for. for 13 miles i was 600 feet agl. my tone is not adversarial, i just want to see how you would handle this situation. i think the hard deck idea is too black and white for all the possible scenarios.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:58:45 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
I invite you to apply hard deck logic to this flight.

John's been really clear about this... read it again Andy. His intent isn't to mess with ridge & mountain flying in any way.

Away from the airport, away from the ridge, he's proposing a 500' stairstep with a 500 agl minimum. In the big valley at Mifflin (elevation 800-ish) that's a 1500 msl hard deck. Can you thermal safely out of the Mifflin valley from 1500msl on a nice easy day? Certainly. John's proposal is to give you an administrative landout **before** you become dangerous to yourself..

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

John's been really clear about this... read it again Andy.

John has not been really clear, John has rvised his rule as the discusion
has gone on.


I would argue that putting a hard deck rule in place has the ability to
create a safety issue rather than mitigate it.

What happens when the competitor drops below the proposed hard deck?

Must they simply land?

Do they give up trying, and then land out trying to get home, possibl
unfocussed and a bit dejected?

You would then be putting pilots in a situation where they are forced int
landing in an unknown environment and by doing so increasing the risk.

Statistics are statistics and can be manipulated to give the desire
outcome.

The issue here is field section, or lack thereof.

There are many factors that influence what is a safe height to climb away:

1) Experience
2) Hours on type
3) Terrain
4) Having a chosen / planned land out option
5) Aircraft type
6) Weather - reliable day Vs unreliable day

Competition gliding is in decline, keep adding rules which removes th
pilot judgment, the decline will be more rapid.

Just my humble opinion.

1000 + hours
Flown 15+ contests
Past contest director
150 hours in the mountains.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:25:13 AM UTC-5, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:58:45 AM UTC-5, ND wrote:
I invite you to apply hard deck logic to this flight.

John's been really clear about this... read it again Andy. His intent isn't to mess with ridge & mountain flying in any way.

Away from the airport, away from the ridge, he's proposing a 500' stairstep with a 500 agl minimum. In the big valley at Mifflin (elevation 800-ish) that's a 1500 msl hard deck. Can you thermal safely out of the Mifflin valley from 1500msl on a nice easy day? Certainly. John's proposal is to give you an administrative landout **before** you become dangerous to yourself.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Hi Evan,

yeah, i know what he's trying to do. it would just be interesting to see how to apply hard deck logic to that situation specifically. how would the hard deck taper to meet the ridge..? et cet.

as far as administrative landouts over the valley, or a flat land location.. let's say that you or i are down low and we've busted the hard deck just barely. Rats! toast for the day. contest blown. but seconds later we feel a bump we consider to be solid, we might still decide to turn. what i'm suggesting is that you can take someone's speed points away with the hard deck, but you can't stop them from circling. pilots might still be inclined to try and circle if they think they can avoid a retrieve and potential damage to their 'sheen. that's my argument.

I believe the current thought is.......,"you blow the hard deck, argue your case to the CD", you give a good case (possible in your case), no penalty. Carry on.

I have posted a few real world examples where some "value" for a hard deck may land someone even though the flight may be "safe".

As I stated before, you can't fix stupid, nor can you make rules to remove stupid and not possibly kill good skill.

Good discussion, not a current competition pilot but I have done local flying in 1-26 and up, regionals and Nats. In general, you will likely find (as mentioned in this thread) "winners" are not usually scraping rocks or doing other unsafe maneuvers.

I started going to contests where you picked your start time at the pilots meeting (as support/crew) and have been around as support or flying since.
Many rules changes, still stupid stuff going on (see my earlier post about a pilot with good brakes not being able to stop on the pavement on HHSC....).
Sheesh.

I still have no say in this current discussion, just following along to see what rules I may deal with down the road.

I also think the start cylinder can be a place where it's very tempting to thermal low, no one wants to relight in front of the entire field, slow up the launch, etc. Tough be be penalized before you're even out on course, but I can think of one pilot who might still be alive if that were the case..

It's situational. At small contests with slow launches, I agree it's a temptation to hang on over the airport hoping for a save. But I've radioed ops, then given up above 1,000', pulled the brakes, and landed quickly at places like Hobbs when the field has launched because it can be faster to get back to 2,000' via a towplane than it is to climb up slowly with full water.

Chip Bearden

Yes, 5 miles around the contest site is a hole in the hard deck, allowing relights. If CDs want to penalize low thermaling at the contest site, they can do that separately.

Or, hard deck applies only after start.

If one were setting a hard deck so that windmill start turbos were at a "safe" altitude, the hard deck would be somewhere about 1500 agl.

I won't pull mine out any lower than that unless I am on a long high downwind to a runway.

YMMV

Lou

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 11:00:05 AM UTC-8, Jim White wrote:
Time to change the subject line?

I have been thinking about the hard deck idea. Possibly fine in flat land
soaring but I am not sure it adds much when ridge flying.

I perceive another problem: Turbos are even more dangerous near the ground
than pure gliders. I may be happy in my 27 at 500ft but in a turbo?

Setting a 1000ft deck because that is safer for turbos will take away the
advantage that real gliders have in this zone. Many pure pilots would say
this advantage goes some of the way to make up for the additional
opportunities turbo pilots have in competition.

Setting a turbo deck for everyone will force everyone to go to the dark
side!

Jim

Jim, on the turbo thing: exactly the opposite is true. Non-motorglider pilots allege that motorglider pilots have a competitive advantage because they can overfly unlandable terrain low, taking on faith (and it is Faith) that the turbo will save them while the non-motorglider does not have that option. The hard deck prevents anyone from gaining points by flying that low in that location, eliminating any perceived advantage for the turbo pilot.

OK, question for everyone to ponder.

Many years ago we had a "backside of the ridge" day at Ridge Soaring. Last turnpoint was Williamsport, return to Ridge Soaring.
Just before the airport, the ridge rises a bunch, but we were on the wrong side (KS in the lead, SM second, me a little behind and a little lower.....).
Suddenly, KS made a hard right turn towards the ridge followed by SM. I figured they knew something I didn't so, either we get through or 3 broken ASW-20's in one spot.
There was a low saddle just before the rising terrain, with some ridge speed (which we all had) it was to make sure you cleared the clothesline in someone's side yard.
Then, terrain follow down the backside to the finish, from memory, we were likely 800' above the airport 1-2 miles from the finish with plenty of speed.

No issues, perfectly safe.
If the current idea of a hard deck was in place, would we all be landed out?
Ground clearance was "maybe" a wingspan but with plenty of "zoomie speed" if need be.

Just asking.......;-)