2013 USA Competition Rules Published

On Wednesday, March 6, 2013 8:38:37 PM UTC-6, Dave Springford wrote:
I guess that's the problem - assumptions based on rumours, or incorrect information. The accident happened substantially further away than 1 mile and the pilot was never above glide slope to make the field at Macready zero.

Dave:

I talked to a number of pilots about this, and did my best to collect the available information. Please see the review on the 2012 contest safety report here

http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2012...y%20Review.pdf

If any of that is inaccurate, please let me know. The coordinates I was given put the crash 1.5 miles from the finish ring, and my understanding of Canadian rules at the time is that one gets speed points by landing out just inside the ring -- as IGC rules encourage as well (See Rick Sheppe's posts from Argentina)

Monitoring contest crashes and getting at least some sense of where we actually have problems is an important part of the RC's job. It's just as important to monitor so that we know where we don't have problems! There are lots of safety theories that just do not show up in the statistics.

When the trace becomes available, it will matter to that monitoring whether this was in fact an outlanding gone bad -- starting from a sensible pattern at 600 feet -- or whether it was a last-minute blown-final-glide affair. Neither is good. We have many crashes from outlandings and low thermaling, and these bear thought. But they are indeed a different category for us all to consider how to fly safer.

We have had lots and lots of crashes involving final glides that end a mile or two short of the airport. Please see "contest safety" for numbers and "safer finishes" for analysis, both here

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john...m#safety_rules

Whether the tragedy at Canadian nationals adds to that or to another category of (alas quite frequent) accidents, the numbers over decades bear out that managing MacCready zero plus or minus 300 feet over the ground is a very tricky affair

John Cochrane

John, I appreciate your concern with making finishes safer by eliminating "coffin corners" (MC 0 at 300'), but to me you are trying to eliminate the pilot from the equation a bit too much. Fine for Sports Class beginners, perhaps, but to me this is part of racing - accurately flown final glides, or landing out to avoid damage (can't win with a broken glider).

Just because you can finish at 50' with a line, doesn't make it smart - since now you only get distance points for a rolling finish, if you are on that MC0 and barely making it, you still have no incentive to push it. If you cant cross the line and fly a normal pattern (either cross at 500' and blend into traffic, or if alone, push down and cross at Vne and pull up - yes, because it's fun and gives all those working or watching on the ground something to see), the decision process is still there. Crossing the line at 50ft and 60 knots get you nothing but distance points and a warning from the CD for dangerous flying!

The point is, if the finish is "cross the runway then fly a safe pattern", then what I have to manage is getting across the runway high and/or fast enough for the existing conditions for a safe pattern and landing.

You don't like it. Fine. I do, but I'm not making the rules, so I'll finish whatever way is legal and safe.

See you at the races!

Cheers,

Kirk
66

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:08:41 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
John, I appreciate your concern with making finishes safer by eliminating "coffin corners" (MC 0 at 300'), but to me you are trying to eliminate the pilot from the equation a bit too much. Fine for Sports Class beginners, perhaps, but to me this is part of racing - accurately flown final glides, or landing out to avoid damage (can't win with a broken glider).



Just because you can finish at 50' with a line, doesn't make it smart - since now you only get distance points for a rolling finish, if you are on that MC0 and barely making it, you still have no incentive to push it. If you cant cross the line and fly a normal pattern (either cross at 500' and blend into traffic, or if alone, push down and cross at Vne and pull up - yes, because it's fun and gives all those working or watching on the ground something to see), the decision process is still there. Crossing the line at 50ft and 60 knots get you nothing but distance points and a warning from the CD for dangerous flying!



The point is, if the finish is "cross the runway then fly a safe pattern", then what I have to manage is getting across the runway high and/or fast enough for the existing conditions for a safe pattern and landing.



You don't like it. Fine. I do, but I'm not making the rules, so I'll finish whatever way is legal and safe.



See you at the races!



Cheers,



Kirk

66

Kirk: Though in fact the numbers show many crashes involving 50 feet, 50 knots, and no ideas, I don't actually push this issue, because I do think adequate pilot education can solve it. OK, I think I'm smart enough to do a rolling finish in this situation.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FINISH. IT'S NOT ABOUT PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO FLY PATTERNS. It's about the marginal final glide that the low finish sets up. We give 1000 points on one side of a barbed wire fence and 600 points on the other side of that fence.

Here, all of us really are in a quandary. If you want to be competitive, you have to be prepared to end up at 50 knots 50 feet over the fence, and to make last-minute landouts from a straight in 53 knot 45+1:1 glide, ducking into fields from 300 feet or less when it does not work out. The numbers bear out that this is extraordinarily difficult, for pilots well past "sports class beginners." These crashes happen at nationals and worlds too.

Beginners are not the problem. Sports class beginners land out long before they get to the coffin corner. The problem is you and me, experienced pilots who have read all the great stories about pulling up to pop over the last tree line, and who know this is a neccessary part of a competitive pilots' toolkit if the rules allow it. Historically, many pilots like you and me have mishandled this situation.

Maybe you feel you have the skills to do it. I know I don't, even though I've studied this intensively (!), and I carefully scope all the fields near the airport. The end of a long contest flight with marginal final glide is a time that I know I am bad at split second risk my life or lose this contest decisions.

My view is simple: this is the sort of thing that if we all studied it, we would volunteer for. I agree not to beat you by flying in the clouds if you agree not to beat me by fly in the clouds. We'll agree to remove the artificial horizons so we know we're keeping the deal. I agree not beat you by landing out, racing back at 90 mph, reassemble and start again, if you agree not to beat me the same way. We'll agree to abide by that rule.

And, I agree not to beat you by popping over the fence at 10 feet after a harrowing glide over the quarry, if you agree not to beat me the same way.

The rules are, really, just a gentleman's agreement between pilots of this sort. And our rules process in the end does not keep things that the majority of pilots don't end up feeling this way about. If, having tried it both ways, the majority of pilots really wants to go back to the old days, then so it shall be.

Now, do you really want to do it? Make no mistake about it, the top 10 at nationals will indeed push the glide to the last field before the airport, will glide over fences at 10 feet, and those not willing to do it will lose. Do you really want to go back to making that a central part of the skills we measure, and are you willing to clean up the occasional mess that results?

John Cochrane

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:33:12 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:08:41 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:

John, I appreciate your concern with making finishes safer by eliminating "coffin corners" (MC 0 at 300'), but to me you are trying to eliminate the pilot from the equation a bit too much. Fine for Sports Class beginners, perhaps, but to me this is part of racing - accurately flown final glides, or landing out to avoid damage (can't win with a broken glider).







Just because you can finish at 50' with a line, doesn't make it smart - since now you only get distance points for a rolling finish, if you are on that MC0 and barely making it, you still have no incentive to push it. If you cant cross the line and fly a normal pattern (either cross at 500' and blend into traffic, or if alone, push down and cross at Vne and pull up - yes, because it's fun and gives all those working or watching on the ground something to see), the decision process is still there. Crossing the line at 50ft and 60 knots get you nothing but distance points and a warning from the CD for dangerous flying!







The point is, if the finish is "cross the runway then fly a safe pattern", then what I have to manage is getting across the runway high and/or fast enough for the existing conditions for a safe pattern and landing.







You don't like it. Fine. I do, but I'm not making the rules, so I'll finish whatever way is legal and safe.







See you at the races!







Cheers,







Kirk



66



Kirk: Though in fact the numbers show many crashes involving 50 feet, 50 knots, and no ideas, I don't actually push this issue, because I do think adequate pilot education can solve it. OK, I think I'm smart enough to do a rolling finish in this situation.



IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FINISH. IT'S NOT ABOUT PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO FLY PATTERNS. It's about the marginal final glide that the low finish sets up. We give 1000 points on one side of a barbed wire fence and 600 points on the other side of that fence.



Here, all of us really are in a quandary. If you want to be competitive, you have to be prepared to end up at 50 knots 50 feet over the fence, and to make last-minute landouts from a straight in 53 knot 45+1:1 glide, ducking into fields from 300 feet or less when it does not work out. The numbers bear out that this is extraordinarily difficult, for pilots well past "sports class beginners." These crashes happen at nationals and worlds too.



Beginners are not the problem. Sports class beginners land out long before they get to the coffin corner. The problem is you and me, experienced pilots who have read all the great stories about pulling up to pop over the last tree line, and who know this is a neccessary part of a competitive pilots' toolkit if the rules allow it. Historically, many pilots like you and me have mishandled this situation.



Maybe you feel you have the skills to do it. I know I don't, even though I've studied this intensively (!), and I carefully scope all the fields near the airport. The end of a long contest flight with marginal final glide is a time that I know I am bad at split second risk my life or lose this contest decisions.



My view is simple: this is the sort of thing that if we all studied it, we would volunteer for. I agree not to beat you by flying in the clouds if you agree not to beat me by fly in the clouds. We'll agree to remove the artificial horizons so we know we're keeping the deal. I agree not beat you by landing out, racing back at 90 mph, reassemble and start again, if you agree not to beat me the same way. We'll agree to abide by that rule.



And, I agree not to beat you by popping over the fence at 10 feet after a harrowing glide over the quarry, if you agree not to beat me the same way.



The rules are, really, just a gentleman's agreement between pilots of this sort. And our rules process in the end does not keep things that the majority of pilots don't end up feeling this way about. If, having tried it both ways, the majority of pilots really wants to go back to the old days, then so it shall be.



Now, do you really want to do it? Make no mistake about it, the top 10 at nationals will indeed push the glide to the last field before the airport, will glide over fences at 10 feet, and those not willing to do it will lose. Do you really want to go back to making that a central part of the skills we measure, and are you willing to clean up the occasional mess that results?



John Cochrane

Well said.

Thanks John,

Craig

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 12:08:41 PM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
John, I appreciate your concern with making finishes safer by eliminating "coffin corners" (MC 0 at 300'), but to me you are trying to eliminate the pilot from the equation a bit too much. Fine for Sports Class beginners, perhaps, but to me this is part of racing - accurately flown final glides, or landing out to avoid damage (can't win with a broken glider).



Just because you can finish at 50' with a line, doesn't make it smart - since now you only get distance points for a rolling finish, if you are on that MC0 and barely making it, you still have no incentive to push it. If you cant cross the line and fly a normal pattern (either cross at 500' and blend into traffic, or if alone, push down and cross at Vne and pull up - yes, because it's fun and gives all those working or watching on the ground something to see), the decision process is still there. Crossing the line at 50ft and 60 knots get you nothing but distance points and a warning from the CD for dangerous flying!



The point is, if the finish is "cross the runway then fly a safe pattern", then what I have to manage is getting across the runway high and/or fast enough for the existing conditions for a safe pattern and landing.



You don't like it. Fine. I do, but I'm not making the rules, so I'll finish whatever way is legal and safe.



See you at the races!



Cheers,



Kirk

66

Um,
If a line is in use, you get speed points for a rolling finish (10.9.4).
"Rolling finish" has no meaning wrt a cylinder finish, the finish occurs at the cylinder boundary.
QT - RC Chair

OK, it's time to jump in here. Wish I didn't have to, but here goes. First, John, show me all the "many" and "lots of one mile short", "crash after crash" accidents caused by the finish line here in the US. Contest and date please. I know of several that you cite that were from dehydration and other factors, like thermalling too low, etc, not the line. As you and many other people know, dehydration has been the cause of many accidents and dumb stunts over the years. I propose we make a rule to do away with dehydration. Then lets make a rule to prevent flying below say 500 feet above any obstacle or persons within 1/2 mile, to avoid a "clear violation of AIM procedures" Your words in quotes. Yeehaa Mifflin! Lets just go through the AIM and make our rules conform more closely. John, you brought it up.

Let's cut thermalling off at a "comfortable" altitude of, say, 700 feet. That would have saved several lives over the years, contests and otherwise. Once you get below 700 feet, you're scored as a landout. They call it pattern altitude for a reason, right? Or, let's make a rule outlawing mid-airs. Lord knows we've had a few of those in recent years, so wouldn't you agree that it's worth having a rule or two? Lets say no thermalling within 500 feet of another competitor. That would have prevent some recent collisions.

We could go on with all these examples, but it's only purpose would be to show what we already know; this sport, as with most high adventure sports, can be dangerous if we're not careful. If we chase every potential problem area with a solution, none of us will want to compete because it will be boring. The cylinder, and it's AS%$%$NE penalties, have chipped away at the fun, adventure and skill factor in a sport that is very demanding by design.. How far do we go before we legislate it to death? Do we only let the most experienced compete at the National level? I always go back to the timeless sayings; "AVIATION IN ITSELF IS NOT INHERANTLY DANGEROUS. BUT TO AN EVEN GREATER EXTENT THAN THE SEA IT IS TERRIBLY UNFORGIVING OF ANY CARELESSNESS, INCAPACITY OR NEGLECT." And another; IF ONE TOOK NO CHANCES, ONE WOULD NOT FLY AT ALL. SAFETY LIES IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHANCES ONE TAKES. So it is with our sport. We can accept that and try to educate new competitors on the dangers and solutions to problems, or we can further kill our sport with solutions that are looking for a problem. Problems that can easily be overstated and overregulated by the use of words like "many", "crash after crash", etc, etc.

John, you are clearly great with numbers, but if I looked at the safety numbers of this, or any other high adventure sport, I would go home and play checkers against myself. I would like to have an equation that would show when we totally kill the fun in this sport with rules, and how close are we to doing that?

I know the "what would you do?" question is coming. Let me say, just to be clear, I would not be satisfied with even one single fatality in this great sport per year either. Lets find the cause of each accident, or incident and educate, educate, educate.

Respectfully,

MK

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 3:29:09 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
Um,

If a line is in use, you get speed points for a rolling finish (10.9.4).

"Rolling finish" has no meaning wrt a cylinder finish, the finish occurs at the cylinder boundary.

QT - RC Chair

My mistake, I thought rolling finishes had been eliminated from both. Need to read the rules closer, obviously.

Which brings up an interesting point (and then I'll stop whining about finishes, I promise!) - if the whole point of the cylinder finish is to ensure a pilot has enough energy to fly a safe pattern, why not just make that a requirement? You finish when you cross the line, at least 50', but with enough energy to fly a safe pattern (whatever that is defined as). No rolling finish for speed, it's a landout. So finish at 700' and 60 knots, or 50' and 150 knots, energy is energy. Fly a dangerous pattern, and the CD gives you a 1000 pt penalty - you get that for an airspace infringement, so why not. Now my final glide and finish is easy - make it over the airfield with enough energy to fly a pattern and land safely. Same result as the circle finish, but less math or clockwatching, and if you overcook your final glide (and your crew is watching) and the pattern is clear, you can still do a nice flyby for the fun of it.

Kirk
66

On Friday, March 8, 2013 10:33:20 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 3:29:09 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:

Um,



If a line is in use, you get speed points for a rolling finish (10.9.4)..



"Rolling finish" has no meaning wrt a cylinder finish, the finish occurs at the cylinder boundary.



QT - RC Chair



My mistake, I thought rolling finishes had been eliminated from both. Need to read the rules closer, obviously.



Which brings up an interesting point (and then I'll stop whining about finishes, I promise!) - if the whole point of the cylinder finish is to ensure a pilot has enough energy to fly a safe pattern, why not just make that a requirement? You finish when you cross the line, at least 50', but with enough energy to fly a safe pattern (whatever that is defined as). No rolling finish for speed, it's a landout. So finish at 700' and 60 knots, or 50' and 150 knots, energy is energy. Fly a dangerous pattern, and the CD gives you a 1000 pt penalty - you get that for an airspace infringement, so why not. Now my final glide and finish is easy - make it over the airfield with enough energy to fly a pattern and land safely. Same result as the circle finish, but less math or clockwatching, and if you overcook your final glide (and your crew is watching) and the pattern is clear, you can still do a nice flyby for the fun of it.



Kirk

66

We prefer rules with quantitative limits, where possible, and not a big argument with the CD that in your glider with your great skill a 250 foot pattern at 50 knots was just fine.

So in the end we did exactly what you suggest. 500 feet a mile out and 50 knots is about the minimum for a pattern. Anything more than that, good for you.

Now, there is a lot of complaints that the rules are too complex. Do you really think it's worth the extra complexity of trying to measure speed, account for wind and water ballast, give you "energy credits" for extra airspeed, fight about "now pilots have to watch the flight computer GPS groundspeed readout and do a lot of math", all so that you can blast through the cylinder wall at 150 feet and 150 knots and do a big zoomie, rather than slow up in the last mile, look around you for other gliders, use the same energy to finish at 700 feet and 60 knots, and then gently sequence into the pattern....Remembering that the rules are the same for everybody, so none of this will make any difference at all in who beats who?

A show finish/low pass box seems like a much better idea

John Cochrane

On Friday, March 8, 2013 11:33:20 AM UTC-5, kirk.stant wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 3:29:09 PM UTC-7, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:

Um,



If a line is in use, you get speed points for a rolling finish (10.9.4)..



"Rolling finish" has no meaning wrt a cylinder finish, the finish occurs at the cylinder boundary.



QT - RC Chair



My mistake, I thought rolling finishes had been eliminated from both. Need to read the rules closer, obviously.



Which brings up an interesting point (and then I'll stop whining about finishes, I promise!) - if the whole point of the cylinder finish is to ensure a pilot has enough energy to fly a safe pattern, why not just make that a requirement? You finish when you cross the line, at least 50', but with enough energy to fly a safe pattern (whatever that is defined as). No rolling finish for speed, it's a landout. So finish at 700' and 60 knots, or 50' and 150 knots, energy is energy. Fly a dangerous pattern, and the CD gives you a 1000 pt penalty - you get that for an airspace infringement, so why not. Now my final glide and finish is easy - make it over the airfield with enough energy to fly a pattern and land safely. Same result as the circle finish, but less math or clockwatching, and if you overcook your final glide (and your crew is watching) and the pattern is clear, you can still do a nice flyby for the fun of it.



Kirk

66

The "whole point" of the cylinder finish goes beyond "ensuring a pilot has enough energy to fly a safe pattern." What this is certainly a necessary item it is not the whole story at all.

We rewrote the Rules Guide appendix on cylinder finishes this year to try and make this more clear.

A10.9.2 ‡ Cylinder Finish
A cylinder finish means that the race does not end at the airport, rather it ends at a defined altitude and distance from the airport. Use of the cylinder for a finish is desirable in a number of circumstances including:

1) The contest is held at a public-use airfield where the field is open to non-contest traffic during the finish

2) The contest includes a Regional Sport class

3) A finish line creates the potential for low energy finishes over densely populated or busy areas (e.g. roads)

4) Any other circumstance that creates safety issues for a line finish. (QT note: especially for "civilians" - think Szeged)

In setting the Minimum Finish Height (MFH), the CD should take into account expected weather, glider performance, pilot skill and experience and local traffic. The goal is for all pilots to be able to safely merge into the pattern, land normally, and roll safely clear.

Note that the MFH is the minimum height for a penalty-free finish. Because a valid finish (with a very small penalty) may be up to 200 ft below the MFH (to accommodate instrumentation errors), it is this lower height that should be considered when setting the MFH. Thus the MFH should normally be 700 ft AGL, which avoids creating the big step in points (landout rather than speed finish) at 300 ft AGL.

When non-contest traffic is allowed during the time gliders are finishing, consider a MFH of at least 1000 ft. AGL at one mile, plus 200 ft per mile beyond that with the goal that contest and non-contest traffic can be smoothly integrated into a normal pattern.

QT - RC Chair

On Friday, March 8, 2013 10:19:12 AM UTC-7, wrote:
We prefer rules with quantitative limits, where possible, and not a big argument with the CD that in your glider with your great skill a 250 foot pattern at 50 knots was just fine.

Yeah, I figured that would be a non-starter with you.

Where I usually fly (and occasionally race) in AZ the last 10 miles are unlandable. I mean "die if you try" unlandable. So I am used to figuring final glides with an pad and an out (that last strip at 10 miles). So are the rest of the guys who fly (and race) here. Yet we manage - and when we have a contest, we usually use a 1 mile 200' circle and go from there. Your approach is to take away the decision from the competitor - make it for him so he doesn't get into trouble. I'm not convinced that is the way to go. Yes it's "safer". So is not racing at all. When QT talks about making the finish 1000' agl or higher, I see the racing days getting shorter - to make sure there is enough lift to get up "over the bar". You obviously don't like creeping back home and sneaking in - because it's statistically dangerous. I see it as part of the sport. But I guess I'm a minority, so I'm willing to play by the rules just to continue enjoying this great sport. And I really do want to thank all of you on the RC for putting up with guys like me - without your work we couldn't even be having this little discussion!

Enough - lets get our gliders waxed and go racing!

Kirk
66