Finish lines

Have soloed about 200 students over the years so I think I have a
pretty good idea what my personal risk threshhold is. My students solo
when they demonstrate consistency in their performance. Rarely as few
as 25 landing, most in the range of 35 to 40. Occasionally a lot more.
Difference is that they remain under supervision and continue to get
feedback.
UH

UH....I know that you have spent countless hours doing your part to promote
soaring and racing but from my perspective it is a real shame that we are
not only being held hostage by the "safety" issue but now the "liability"
issue.

I actually agree with your views re the liability risk. For anyone to think
that the possibility of having to defend themselves in court as former
instructors is absurd shows lack of knowledge of what has happened in the
powered end of flying. The medical industry has long ago been witness to
the fact that consent forms (our "waivers") aren't worth the paper that they
are written on in court with only the slightest objection on the grounds of
duress at the time of signing. And there are "physicians" who will line up
to testify for plantiffs in even the most absurd cases in order to pad their
own pockets knowing full well that their opinion is counter to the standard
of care. I would bet that this occurs in the flying arena as well.

In AZ we have even had a retired attorney resign from our local club board
due to concerns that he could be held responsible for someone getting
involved in an driving accident on the way home from the airport after
drinking a beer from the keg in our clubhouse.

Having said all this though I refuse to be held hostage by the US legal
system. Now that's easy for me to say since I am not an FAA certified
instructor but would be happy to teach new racing pilots as I've done here
in AZ. To do otherwise is a slippery slope and as with the safety
arguement, the liability arguement can stop any well meaning project dead in
its tracks. It would also mean an end to racing as we know it if organizers
become increasingly concerned about the risk. What a shame it will all be.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Maybe I haven't been entirely clear on my points.
I absolutely think we should be passing on the best information we know
how to with respect to how to fly well and safely and maybe even have a
little fun along the way.
I do admit to getting my hackles up when comments get made about why
don't "you, we, whatever" teach these guys how to do low finishes right
so we can all keep doing worm burners.
The fact is those of us who teach these new pilots try to do that and
more. Even so, we still have what some think is a problem that is
easily fixed by raising the finish height.
I have called many pilots aside with friendly advice after funky
finishes. Most took my input as good advice. A few did not. Two of
those had crashes within a year of counseling which were the result of
excessively low energy patterns.
The conclusion I draw from this is that marginal energy finishes and
related accident potential will continue if we keep the low gate.
When you blow the high gate there is still enough altitude to safely do
a pattern and take the rolling finish time.
All that said, I think we pretty much agree that sharing our knowledge
makes it better for everybody.
The critical point comes when somebody is expected to sign on the line
as to competency in a low level semi aerobatic maneuver.
Thanks for sharing
UH

A couple years back at a regional contest I listened to a daily safety
talk given by Dick Butler regarding final glides. A couple points stuck
in my head, Dick won't fly final glides in the yellow band (starts at
about 105-115 kts on most modern sailplanes) and he will accept a very
high finish to do so. He considers energy management to have been
successful (optimum) if he can fly and finish his final glide at about
85 knots. An 85 kt finish obviously precludes any type of "wormburner"
finish. My personal observation is that the very best pilots almost
never do flashy low finishes even with plenty of energy. It's the
wannabes that tend to engage in that sort of stuff and I am not without
guilt in that area but have vowed to correct my past errors. 120 knots
through the gate at 50-100 feet might be successful energy management
but it is a failure of risk management, especially at a contest.
Flying gliders and racing gliders is all about energy management and
risk management.

On the other end of the spectrum is the low energy finish and the
pressure to fit into the pattern versus a rolling finish that
potentially has you landing head on into the rest of the traffic. It is
real easy to get fixated on finishing at a certain height (i.e. a LOW
height) and flying a pattern and that is one of the ways we end up with
the funky finish. Now if you only have enough energy to plop over the
fence the decision is easy, there will be no pattern because it is so
obvious you can't do it and that is a huge failure all its own (you
should have landed miles back...). Now lets say you've arrived over the
end of the field opposite the direction of landing and you're at 400
feet and 55 knots. You have been sweating the glide for miles and to
land straight ahead into traffic you are now in a high energy situation
to get down and stopped without rolling too far into the oncoming
traffic. That's a big shift in state of mind when you've been trying to
conserve every bit of energy during your final glide. I think its
precisely this situation that has caused the most trouble recently. If
we are going to "teach" final glides we would be well served to spend a
lot of time talking about low energy glides and when and how to knock it
off and get safe.

(disclosu A few weeks back I landed less than a mile from the
airfield when my final glide fell apart, if I had done it right I would
have landed 5 miles short of the field)

FM


wrote:
Maybe I haven't been entirely clear on my points.
I absolutely think we should be passing on the best information we know
how to with respect to how to fly well and safely and maybe even have a
little fun along the way.
I do admit to getting my hackles up when comments get made about why
don't "you, we, whatever" teach these guys how to do low finishes right
so we can all keep doing worm burners.
The fact is those of us who teach these new pilots try to do that and
more. Even so, we still have what some think is a problem that is
easily fixed by raising the finish height.
I have called many pilots aside with friendly advice after funky
finishes. Most took my input as good advice. A few did not. Two of
those had crashes within a year of counseling which were the result of
excessively low energy patterns.
The conclusion I draw from this is that marginal energy finishes and
related accident potential will continue if we keep the low gate.
When you blow the high gate there is still enough altitude to safely do
a pattern and take the rolling finish time.
All that said, I think we pretty much agree that sharing our knowledge
makes it better for everybody.
The critical point comes when somebody is expected to sign on the line
as to competency in a low level semi aerobatic maneuver.
Thanks for sharing
UH

Other skill sports require certification before you can participate as
a contestant. Showing up at a racetrack with a formula "anything" won't
get you a start position.

SSA sanctioned sailplane racing also has some gatekeeping. Perhaps we
need to discuss whether a Silver C is an adequate prerequisite to race.

When I was building the Super Albatross replica I asked the well known
aeronautical engineer, Stan Hall to take a look at what I was doing and
to run the numbers on my wing attach fittings. I told Stan that I
understood that my request involved some "liability issues" and I would
understand if he refused.
Stan told me something I will never forget, he said, I always do the
very best job I know how to do and don't worry much about "liability
issues". That's it in a nutshell, you shouldn't have liability problems
if you always do a good job, the right way, the first time.

What's this got to do with soaring? Some feel that any effort to
correct known safety problems is to have the organization "held hostage
to safety and liability issues". Not true, in fact not addressing known
safety issues is the definition of "liability".
JJ


Kilo Charlie wrote:
UH....I know that you have spent countless hours doing your part to
promote
soaring and racing but from my perspective it is a real shame that we
are
not only being held hostage by the "safety" issue but now the
"liability"
issue.

I actually agree with your views re the liability risk. For anyone
to think
that the possibility of having to defend themselves in court as
former
instructors is absurd shows lack of knowledge of what has happened in
the
powered end of flying. The medical industry has long ago been
witness to
the fact that consent forms (our "waivers") aren't worth the paper
that they
are written on in court with only the slightest objection on the
grounds of
duress at the time of signing. And there are "physicians" who will
line up
to testify for plantiffs in even the most absurd cases in order to
pad their
own pockets knowing full well that their opinion is counter to the
standard
of care. I would bet that this occurs in the flying arena as well.

In AZ we have even had a retired attorney resign from our local club
board
due to concerns that he could be held responsible for someone getting

involved in an driving accident on the way home from the airport
after
drinking a beer from the keg in our clubhouse.

Having said all this though I refuse to be held hostage by the US
legal
system. Now that's easy for me to say since I am not an FAA
certified
instructor but would be happy to teach new racing pilots as I've done
here
in AZ. To do otherwise is a slippery slope and as with the safety
arguement, the liability arguement can stop any well meaning project
dead in
its tracks. It would also mean an end to racing as we know it if
organizers
become increasingly concerned about the risk. What a shame it will
all be.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points
of view.

We have flown the finish cylinder for about 5 years,
now. Zero accidents,so far. I know of 5 accidents at
the finish line.
Enough said.
JJ

"John Sinclair" wrote in message
:

Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points
of view.

We have flown the finish cylinder for about 5 years,
now. Zero accidents,so far. I know of 5 accidents at
the finish line.
Enough said.
JJ

There have actually been some with exactly the scenario that Kirk
posited.

Regards,

Larry Goddard
"01" USA

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?

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.

9B