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
|
|||
|
|||
Safety finish rule & circle radius
As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed modification. Background: On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T- storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think) 200ft/mile. About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety. Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule. At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best, and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else. Several other pilots related similar stories. After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the 'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone 'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude. So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish no matter what you do. Any thoughts on this? Frank(TA) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Lexan Bend Radius | J.Kahn | Home Built | 10 | December 7th 06 04:09 PM |
$100 hamburger radius | Stubby | Piloting | 30 | November 13th 06 11:46 PM |
The Soaring Safety Foundation (SSF) Safety Seminars Hit The Road in the USA | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | September 11th 06 03:48 AM |
RV trailing edge radius is... | guynoir | Home Built | 0 | July 1st 03 07:32 AM |