500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll

BMacLean wrote:

Dumbing down competition for people who don't know how to do it but want to
participate with everyone else is not fair to the pilots who have worked
many years to learn the craft. It's supposed to be hard!


I just thought I'd provide the complete movie quote for those who don't
recognize where it comes from:

"It's supposed to be hard! If it were easy, everyone would do it. It's
the 'hard' that makes it great."
-Tom Hanks "A League of Their Own" Columbia/Tristar 1992


p7 unit

Andy Blackburn wrote in message ...
I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.

If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make it
to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my ship
requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
climb even higher if you want any buffer.

I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold altitude.
A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide to
the inner part of the donut.

The simple point here is that all of this climbing
and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
is because the ground forces the issue later with the
extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
the same.

I don't see how this is any different; we have to see and avoid other
sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the time that we have
come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally anywhere on
course, including directly over turn points. And even if you don't
have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally and
high-speed gliders in-bound to finish.

I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport
except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious
crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum
altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some
competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the
others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy
function and accept the result.

It is different Tom.

Yes, there are always climbing and cruising sailplanes
in the mix. The difference is that the closer you are
to the finish the more likely it is that gliders will
be converging on each other (horizontally AND vertically)
and the more likely it is that the cruising sailplanes
will be doing something approaching redline rather
than 75-100 knots.

The logic for the difference is simple. If you know
you can't make it home you are likely to be making
outlanding preparations somewhere around 700-1,200
feet - depending on terrain and availability of landable
fields. In the 'final glide gone bad' scenario you
would come to this decision 5-10 miles out and either
find a thermal or land (at least most pilots I know
will - unless they're flying over a terrain so benign
that it's like one big putting green). At this distance
the higher speed traffic is well higher and hasn't
started to burn off the extra altitude they are carrying
as a buffer. The climbing glider won't likely climb
up to them anyway unless it finds a real corker of
a thermal (somewhat unlikely under 'low save' circumstances).
The reason you don't often find gliders making low
saves at less than 5 miles out today is that they've
all landed out by then or made it home - put another
way not many pilots set up for a landout from 500'.

Under the proposed rule you can find yourself at 2.5
miles from home and 700' AGL with not enough altitude
for a speed finish, but enough altitude to get home.
What would you do in this situation? EXACTLY - you
will hunt around the edge of the donut for lift. aHopefully,
as you get lower you drift towards the airport to keep
the landing option open (not sure if the rule allows
for catching a thermal below 500' right over the airport,
climbing up to enough height to go out to 2 miles and
back above 500'). I suppose we could make a rule that
if you EVER get below 500' AGL in a flight you're done,
but it would probably only be enforceable in the flatlands
of Kansas.

So there you are climbing up at 2.5 miles out, trying
to get enough altitude to make it to the inside edge
of the donut at 500'. Say you'll accept a Mc=2 glide.
Well at 2 miles the difference between a Mc=2 glide
and a Mc=6 glide is 150'. So all the guys coming steaming
home - now at close to redline will be more or less
at your altitude. Under the current rules this is unlikely
to happen at less than 6 miles out - where the differential
altitude margin is three times as great and the speed
differentials are somewhat lower.

If you want some really interesting and action-packed
finishes with a few poor pilots stuck outside the donut
- able to glide to the airport but unable to finish
for speed points - floating around at low altitude
and mixing it up with gliders at redline - all within
view of spectators - then this is your best shot.

Wait, I forgot the best part! The guys at redline will
have their heads in the cockpit, looking at their glide
computers, because 500' up on a two mile radius has
no visual reference to fly against.

Democracy is a great thing, but without goodwill towards
others it offers the potential for 51% to inflict pain
on 49%. If you want to finish at 500' go ahead - you
don't need a rule for it and it costs you only a minute
or so. I personally carry 1,000' of extra until I'm
5-7 miles out.

While I believe it is 100% well intentioned, I don't
think this proposal actually helps and it has some
very funky potential side effects.

Vote away!

9B

At 20:30 20 September 2003, Tom Seim wrote:
Andy Blackburn wrote in message news:...
I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.

If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make
it
to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my
ship
requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
climb even higher if you want any buffer.

I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold
altitude.
A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide
to
the inner part of the donut.

The simple point here is that all of this climbing
and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
is because the ground forces the issue later with
the
extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
the same.

I don't see how this is any different; we have to see
and avoid other
sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the
time that we have
come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally
anywhere on
course, including directly over turn points. And even
if you don't
have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally
and
high-speed gliders in-bound to finish.

I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing
to the sport
except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some
very anxious
crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs
for minimum
altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may
have some
competitive edge because they are willing to push it
lower than the
others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote,
let democracy
function and accept the result.

Tom-

However well intentioned I don't think that most pilots realize what a
pandoras box the "safety" issue is. Put bluntly, if the SRA and SSA become
focused upon safety issues in this sport it is a death sentence in and of
itself and I for one will no longer be racing in contests sanctioned by
these organizations.

When people become so parental that they "know" what is best for the rest of
society they have lost all perspective of what life and freedom are about.
Do you mean to tell mean that you honestly think most pilots are incapable
of making reasonable judgements? If so I'd say that you are a brave man for
even flying within the same area with these renegades. If these rules pass
and become the status quo you will be left with a system that is paralyzed
by its very existence i.e. there is no perfectly safe way to race a glider.
This will split the SSA resulting in no winners. Please think about this
before you vote.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport
except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious
crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum
altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some
competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the
others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy
function and accept the result.

Tom, that is like saying that in NASCAR (or F1, or CART, or drag
racing) fast laps add nothing to the sport except for some broken cars
(and drivers!). WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RACING! I, for one, love the
rush of a low, fast finish at the end of a nicely judged 60 mile final
glide - that's one of the reasons I race! Is there more risk than
just entering the pattern at 800 feet with all the 2-33s? Probably
(although my bet is the stats don't support that conclusion).

If you feel racing is too dangerous, then by all means don't do it,
but please don't ruin if for those of us who like it the way it is -
challenging, exciting, beautiful to watch, and yes, a little risky!

It used to be simple - CD set a task, and fastest glider around wins.
Now, you don't know how far everyone is flying, and going faster
doesn't even mean you are going to win - but by God you will do it
"safely"!

Maybe it's time to set up a separate racing series for those of us who
prefer to race than go on organized cross-countries in gaggles - Hell,
it shouldn't take too long for us to kill ourselves off with our low
finishes and pinpoint turnpoints, then everybody can go back to TATs
with 20 mile areas, 15 extra minutes and 1000 ft high speed limited
finishes.

YAWN

Kirk Stant

Maybe it's time to set up a separate racing series for those of us who
prefer to race than go on organized cross-countries in gaggles - Hell,
it shouldn't take too long for us to kill ourselves off with our low
finishes and pinpoint turnpoints, then everybody can go back to TATs
with 20 mile areas, 15 extra minutes and 1000 ft high speed limited
finishes.

Kirk...you forgot the handwringing and moaning about what they must be
forgetting to add to the list of rules re safety.....you know the
motto....."you can never be safe enough!". At least they'll have a good
model with John Danforth leading the way.

Now what was that name we were considering for the new organization?!

Casey

Kirk,

I love reading your posts because we obviously have such different
views. Your point about NASCAR is amusing because it is hard to find a
more intrusive organization that micromanages their sport. NASCAR is
EXTREMELY safety concious that monitors not only the detailed design
of the car (when was the last time they actually raced "stock cars"?),
but every minute aspect of race operation. If there is a fatality,
such as Earnhardt's, they take action to prevent it from happening
again:

Safety has become a paramount concern this year in NASCAR. Restrictor
plates, throttle limiters and soft walls have all been hot topics in
an effort to find an answer to a single question, "What else can be
done to limit driver injury"?

Should NASCAR mandate the HANS® Device?
By Frank Ryan
October 31, 2000
AutoRacing1.com

I don't think that soaring can accomodate this level of governence.
After all, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsers and a national
TV audience. But to compare our sport to NASCAR on just one aspect
presents a distorted picture.

I agree that there is nothing to compare with a high-speed contest
finish for the adreneline junky. The problem is that most tasks aren't
assigned turnpoints, resulting in gliders approaching the finish line
from all directions. Consequently you can be mixing slow speed gliders
in the pattern (at low altitude) with high-speed finishing gliders.

It IS sad to see this part of the sport go (along with the start line)
since this is the only spectator part of the contest.

Tom

They could drive slower, have mandatory car separation and have to use
blinkers to pass. And to make horse racing safer, they could stop putting
those little men on the horses backs. But to be really safe, they just
shouldn't race!

"Tom Seim" wrote in message
om...
Kirk,

I love reading your posts because we obviously have such different
views. Your point about NASCAR is amusing because it is hard to find a
more intrusive organization that micromanages their sport. NASCAR is
EXTREMELY safety concious that monitors not only the detailed design
of the car (when was the last time they actually raced "stock cars"?),
but every minute aspect of race operation. If there is a fatality,
such as Earnhardt's, they take action to prevent it from happening
again:

Safety has become a paramount concern this year in NASCAR. Restrictor
plates, throttle limiters and soft walls have all been hot topics in
an effort to find an answer to a single question, "What else can be
done to limit driver injury"?

Should NASCAR mandate the HANS® Device?
By Frank Ryan
October 31, 2000
AutoRacing1.com

I don't think that soaring can accomodate this level of governence.
After all, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsers and a national
TV audience. But to compare our sport to NASCAR on just one aspect
presents a distorted picture.

I agree that there is nothing to compare with a high-speed contest
finish for the adreneline junky. The problem is that most tasks aren't
assigned turnpoints, resulting in gliders approaching the finish line
from all directions. Consequently you can be mixing slow speed gliders
in the pattern (at low altitude) with high-speed finishing gliders.

It IS sad to see this part of the sport go (along with the start line)
since this is the only spectator part of the contest.

Tom

I now think I understand your concerns, and I'm becoming undecided
now. Must mull harder...

In article ,
says...
I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.

If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make it
to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my ship
requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
climb even higher if you want any buffer.

I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold altitude.
A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide to
the inner part of the donut.

The simple point here is that all of this climbing
and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
is because the ground forces the issue later with the
extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
the same.



--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Andy has it exactly right.

Yesterday, on the last leg of an ASA 150-mile task, I found myself low at
the end of the day as thermals died. Just under 10 miles out, I had the
last decent strip before flying over hills and unlandable desert. My flight
computer said I had 350 feet over a 2-knot glide. Since 500-foot sink in
that distance isn't impossible, I decided to land. I was 1,300 feet above
the ground and, with luck, could have scraped back. I took the safer
option.

No finish donut would have had me decide any differently, this was purely a
safety issue for me. Those that finished were 500 to 1000 feet above me.

Another point is the scoring penalty for landing out. I had managed a quite
respectable 70 mph up to that point and would probably have got close to 900
points if I had finished the task. What do I get for landing 9 miles short
after completing 94% of the task? Not 94%, that's for sure - more like 30%
to 40%.

Any economist will tell you that this high rate of taxation for landing out
will encourage the risk takers to push on for a better reward.

Maybe we should use a carrot and not a stick and look at a scoring system
that rewards distance and speed and doesn't punish landouts so severely.
This makes more sense to me than messing with tried and tested finish
procedures.

Mike ASW 20 WA

"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...
It is different Tom.

Yes, there are always climbing and cruising sailplanes
in the mix. The difference is that the closer you are
to the finish the more likely it is that gliders will
be converging on each other (horizontally AND vertically)
and the more likely it is that the cruising sailplanes
will be doing something approaching redline rather
than 75-100 knots.

The logic for the difference is simple. If you know
you can't make it home you are likely to be making
outlanding preparations somewhere around 700-1,200
feet - depending on terrain and availability of landable
fields. In the 'final glide gone bad' scenario you
would come to this decision 5-10 miles out and either
find a thermal or land (at least most pilots I know
will - unless they're flying over a terrain so benign
that it's like one big putting green). At this distance
the higher speed traffic is well higher and hasn't
started to burn off the extra altitude they are carrying
as a buffer. The climbing glider won't likely climb
up to them anyway unless it finds a real corker of
a thermal (somewhat unlikely under 'low save' circumstances).
The reason you don't often find gliders making low
saves at less than 5 miles out today is that they've
all landed out by then or made it home - put another
way not many pilots set up for a landout from 500'.

Under the proposed rule you can find yourself at 2.5
miles from home and 700' AGL with not enough altitude
for a speed finish, but enough altitude to get home.
What would you do in this situation? EXACTLY - you
will hunt around the edge of the donut for lift. aHopefully,
as you get lower you drift towards the airport to keep
the landing option open (not sure if the rule allows
for catching a thermal below 500' right over the airport,
climbing up to enough height to go out to 2 miles and
back above 500'). I suppose we could make a rule that
if you EVER get below 500' AGL in a flight you're done,
but it would probably only be enforceable in the flatlands
of Kansas.

So there you are climbing up at 2.5 miles out, trying
to get enough altitude to make it to the inside edge
of the donut at 500'. Say you'll accept a Mc=2 glide.
Well at 2 miles the difference between a Mc=2 glide
and a Mc=6 glide is 150'. So all the guys coming steaming
home - now at close to redline will be more or less
at your altitude. Under the current rules this is unlikely
to happen at less than 6 miles out - where the differential
altitude margin is three times as great and the speed
differentials are somewhat lower.

If you want some really interesting and action-packed
finishes with a few poor pilots stuck outside the donut
- able to glide to the airport but unable to finish
for speed points - floating around at low altitude
and mixing it up with gliders at redline - all within
view of spectators - then this is your best shot.

Wait, I forgot the best part! The guys at redline will
have their heads in the cockpit, looking at their glide
computers, because 500' up on a two mile radius has
no visual reference to fly against.

Democracy is a great thing, but without goodwill towards
others it offers the potential for 51% to inflict pain
on 49%. If you want to finish at 500' go ahead - you
don't need a rule for it and it costs you only a minute
or so. I personally carry 1,000' of extra until I'm
5-7 miles out.

While I believe it is 100% well intentioned, I don't
think this proposal actually helps and it has some
very funky potential side effects.

Vote away!

9B

At 20:30 20 September 2003, Tom Seim wrote:
Andy Blackburn wrote in message news:...
I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.

If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make
it
to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my
ship
requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
climb even higher if you want any buffer.

I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold
altitude.
A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide
to
the inner part of the donut.

The simple point here is that all of this climbing
and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
is because the ground forces the issue later with
the
extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
the same.

I don't see how this is any different; we have to see
and avoid other
sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the
time that we have
come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally
anywhere on
course, including directly over turn points. And even
if you don't
have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally
and
high-speed gliders in-bound to finish.

I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing
to the sport
except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some
very anxious
crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs
for minimum
altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may
have some
competitive edge because they are willing to push it
lower than the
others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote,
let democracy
function and accept the result.