A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hard Deck



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old January 29th 18, 09:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Hard Deck

This thread got started by a pilot dying and we talking about how to prevent it.

While I like rules (by nature) and have no problem with a hard deck that ends your day. I do think most rules add to safe behavior, such as minimum finish height. i.e. There is no doubt pilots will finish at the height you set more or less (even if it's the ground).

I do not think the dangerous behavior comes from the desire for points - it is almost always a pilot miscalculation of lift, good landing and forgetting their own rules (as in my case).

I also am not so sure experience and currency are such significant factors in significant crashes - I have only been Soaring about a decade and the pilots I have heard about were all pretty experienced and some CFIG's. I bet the experience level of most pilots who had significant crashes is pretty high.

As noted the deck below your hard deck is so variable. What is better to be at 300' ft over a enormous plowed field or be at 800 ft trying to get your glass ship into a 500 ft. what looks like a field.

While the Hard Deck would not affect me at all (All the suggested hard decks are way below my personal deck - and I bet the Soaring Safety Foundation would not endorse it ) - I am not sure it really solves the issue. It is one of those problem where we already have the solution in our rules and how we are taught to fly. It is a execution issue, not a rule issue.

Anyone with a Bronze badge knows the rules for any XC Soaring flight. Everyone who has a CFIG sign their BFR, has been taught the rules for safe flying.

How do you get a pilot who is hyper competitive to not loose his grasp on reality/safety - I am not so sure you can make a new rule for that. I have heard this comment "you men sit in Safety meeting before a contest day and then turn into kids once you get inside your glider" - I think she may be right and that's something we need to fight the urge.

I will happily follow what ever rule the RC makes and continue to fly contests - if I keep my head on straight and my eyes outside the cockpit, it is reasonably safe.

WH
  #72  
Old January 29th 18, 10:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:49:35 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Just an idea.


Here's mine: Shame the offender at the pilots' meeting. Display the offending bit of the flight trace and give the offender the "opportunity" to give the day's safety talk.

In the case of egregious or repeat violations of good sense, get the safety committee together and discuss a points based penalty (or DQ if it comes to that). I loved Cindy's story about OF, sounds like that they got that one right on the money.

Of course, my interest here has more to do with actual contest safety, less with who gets to go to WGC.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

  #73  
Old January 29th 18, 10:38 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Hard Deck

Good comments Bill.

Some of this reminds me of motorcycle and auto racing courses/training (of which I have been to several in each type vehicle).

What you do on a nice weekend afternoon for fun (AKA, fun flight in a sailplane from your home field) tends to become different in a "competition" (whether an actual competition or just a training group) where the "Red Mist" comes into play.
You tend to go tunnel vision and the old "bottom of the gut" safety alarms tend to be muted.
In soaring, this may mean you fly lower, circle lower, wait longer to call it quits to land, whatever.
Rules will not fix this.
Yes, a penalty "may" remove the red mist a little sooner, hopefully reducing broken ships. If you don't break the glider, you likely don't hurt the pilot.

As before, I am not for or against new rules, curious to see the thoughts in this thread and comments on both sides.
  #74  
Old January 29th 18, 10:43 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:32:56 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:14:55 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:

i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to stop.

ND


Andy,

John (and Jon) have been quite explicit: They don't give a f@#& about your safety or your behavior. They care that you cannot get any speed points for doing something they don't approve of. Big difference.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8


That is exactly right. Except for the "they don't approve of" part. It should be "the consensus doesn't approve of". The question - other than the technical implementation issues (and necessarily prior to it) - is "what is the consensus for acceptable behavior?". This appears to be the main point of contention. It appears that the consensus here is that circling at 300 ft is acceptable, and therefore should be legal in competition. If that is the broad consensus, I'm OK with that, even if it means I may be less competitive, or I vote with my feet.

Don't kid yourself that this isn't reward for risk though. In JJ's story, he got a landout and the other guy got away, probably with 300 more points. Extending this further, what if the bump was at 200'? 100'? The rules committee has to decide that some things are not acceptable, or that anything goes as long as the pilot lives through it. One of the consequences is that many mainstream pilots consider racing to be too risky to participate. I can think offhand of about 10 pilots just at my local glider port who cite this as the primary reason they do not. Not a single one mentions complexity of the rules.

Crashes are never a binary thing: below 300 ft you crash, above that you don't. Rather, below 300' your probability of crashing is higher than above 300' for everyone; and a pilot very experienced as circling below 300' is less likely to crash than one inexperienced at it. Perhaps to gain that experience he had to crash a few times, or at least buy an underwear store. Does anyone know an instructor who will take them out in a two seat to teach circling below 300'? Why not, if it is perfectly safe? I know about 10 CFIGs in the area, not a single one would consider it.

I assumed that there would be a maximum acceptable risk for competition, and that if it could be enforced by rules, this would be fair for everyone and increase participation - unless the skill of circling below 300 ft without crashing is a key skill that we are trying to measure. It appears that among the participants in this discussion (which are a very small minority of the racing community, and a minuscule minority of the soaring community) there is no stomach for this. In maintaining the status quo, you may also be maintaining the currently continuous shrinking trend of the sport.
  #75  
Old January 29th 18, 11:07 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 155
Default Hard Deck

"unless the skill of circling below 300 ft without crashing is a key skill that we are trying to measure."

I would bet no one would say this is a skill anyone is testing in a contest.

I had very good training by a Hall of Fame pilot
1. Aren't we supposed to be over the field we selected and able to do a complete pattern, at pattern altitude?
2. Every off farmer field landing I have ever done was the first time I have landed in that field!

So the time you need to look at it and set up is not happening below pattern altitude - we do not have/allow 300 ft patterns at our club - matter of fact we don't have/allow 500 ft patterns either

I do like Andy's suggestion, as it has more teaching power - circle below a given altitude anywhere in the contest and explain the "why this was safe" to the room full of pilots the next day.......... Ouch!

Been there done that - will try to never do that again!

WH
  #76  
Old January 30th 18, 12:04 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:49:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I sort of had a different version on all of this.

Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.

Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.

Andy Blackburn
9B


You're wanting to penalize folks based on an unreferenced altimeter? I'd engineered a way to avoid that problem -- that is by sampling examination of only those competitors that ended up landing out (and are thereby locally referenced). That makes it so that you are able to have XXX be a tighter measure that isn't wasting altitude and actually correlates exactly with what your eyeball had said about AGL height. By my proposal there is no need to ever have concern about how your altimeter has been impacted by temperature or weather change or location. I think the use of sampling examination would be just as effective in motivating better pilotage in the area of dangerously low saves.

Your proposal requires software. My proposal can be implemented this year by any CD who chooses to do so; the rules and software are in place.

I prefer no altitude be wasted to altimeter uncertainty because that has the ultimate effect of wasting airspace thus impinging on my aviating freewill if I end up having to monitor the instruments and land from a higher altitude than I would otherwise. The measurement uncertainty also will create a problem in the mind of the CD who is assessing the penalty: "Gee sir, I'm sure I wasn't that low, I think the pressure must have been higher out to the east."
  #77  
Old January 30th 18, 12:23 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 12:03:39 PM UTC-8, wrote:
A few safety notes from SK point of view:

http://www.opensoaring.com/sebastian...8-in-vitacura/


Thank you very much for sharing!
  #78  
Old January 30th 18, 12:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Ron Gleason
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 483
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, 29 January 2018 16:04:43 UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:49:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I sort of had a different version on all of this.

Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.

Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.

Andy Blackburn
9B


You're wanting to penalize folks based on an unreferenced altimeter? I'd engineered a way to avoid that problem -- that is by sampling examination of only those competitors that ended up landing out (and are thereby locally referenced). That makes it so that you are able to have XXX be a tighter measure that isn't wasting altitude and actually correlates exactly with what your eyeball had said about AGL height. By my proposal there is no need to ever have concern about how your altimeter has been impacted by temperature or weather change or location. I think the use of sampling examination would be just as effective in motivating better pilotage in the area of dangerously low saves.

Your proposal requires software. My proposal can be implemented this year by any CD who chooses to do so; the rules and software are in place.

I prefer no altitude be wasted to altimeter uncertainty because that has the ultimate effect of wasting airspace thus impinging on my aviating freewill if I end up having to monitor the instruments and land from a higher altitude than I would otherwise. The measurement uncertainty also will create a problem in the mind of the CD who is assessing the penalty: "Gee sir, I'm sure I wasn't that low, I think the pressure must have been higher out to the east."


I personally do not like the hard deck idea, let pilots be pilots and compete the way they desire.

Many ideas have been made; let the scorer examine the logs, ask the CD to determine a hard deck for some area of the task, let the organizers define and create SUA file(s) for tasking are, the scoring program can etc.

I ask everyone to keep in mind that one reason the number of contests and contest sites are dwindling is that the qualified people required to organize, manage and run the contest is also dwindling or burned out. Everyone involved with a making a contest happen is over burdened, under paid and are volunteers (few exceptions I am sure). If you want new rules, guidelines, use of technology etc please make sure it is simple, automated and does not place more burdens on the contest organizers. Better yet, step aside from flying and organize and run a contest!

Ron Gleason
Sorry 9B, had to.
  #79  
Old January 30th 18, 12:49 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 4:43:48 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
One of the consequences is that many mainstream pilots consider racing to be too risky to participate. I can think offhand of about 10 pilots just at my local glider port who cite this as the primary reason they do not. Not a single one mentions complexity of the rules.


Risk (at least w.r.t. terrain, weather) is in your own hands, always!!

Changing rules can have no effect here. What isn't obvious about this?

No one is ever obligated to do anything unsafe in competition.

It is very possible to scorch the field without taking any significant amount of risk.

Evan Ludeman / T8
  #80  
Old January 30th 18, 04:37 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Michael Opitz
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default Hard Deck

At 18:36 29 January 2018, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-5, Michael

Opitz wrote:
At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in

Nationals
were
d=
ue to a percent=
age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing

the way
the
ga=
me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20


Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of

at
least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this

happened.
I'm sure there are many more...

RO


I'd very much like to see the flight logs. These logs ought to be

public
domain, so let's shine some light on the subject.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Those that immediately came to my mind were from the time before
loggers.. 1958, 1983, 1985, 1988....

RO

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Melting Deck Plates Muddle - V-22 on LHD deck.... Mike Naval Aviation 79 December 14th 09 07:00 PM
hard wax application Tuno Soaring 20 April 24th 08 03:04 PM
winter is hard. Bruce Greef Soaring 2 July 3rd 06 06:31 AM
It ain't that hard Gregg Ballou Soaring 8 March 23rd 05 02:18 AM
Who says flying is hard? Roger Long Piloting 9 November 1st 04 09:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:07 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.