Another new Soaring Article

On May 13, 8:53*am, Luke wrote:
On 05/13/2011 10:00 AM, John Cochrane wrote:





--- End Quote ---

Hi John,

As usual a well written article with interesting points.

* From personal experience I do not like the height and time restriction.
* *I understand the reasoning behind the rule but I feel that it promotes
unsafe flying by making the pilot spend too much time with his head
down. *Instead of looking out we are watching the altimeter and watch in
order to get a valid start.

Thanks for writing the articles, great food for thought.

Luke Szczepaniak

Yes, it has its limits. But wait until you try circling in the clouds
with 50 other gliders, all gaming an unlimited-altitude gate, or
dodging the guys diving out of the clouds at VNE to nick a gate with
limited altitude but no time or speed limit. Can you think of a better
way? That's a serious invitation.
John Cochrane

I obviously don't have the experience you do, the largest contest I have
been in before the implementation of the new rules had about 60 gliders.
* The previous situation was much safer as there was a visual reference
outside of the cockpit. It is much easier to stay "clear of cloud"
rather than trying to stay below "5000 feet" on the altimeter let alone
trying to guess what the Flight Recorder is doing. *I rather be at cloud
base knowing that the guys up there with me are looking out as opposed
to being 1000 feet below the cloud with all of us looking at our
altimeters and watches.

snip
Luke Szczepaniak- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I am not convinced that that" Altimeter and Watchs" statement pans out
in actual practice.

The only reason you would even consider doing this is because you left
the cylinder and then came back to it. Normally only a small
percentage of pilots are going to be doing this.
And even then it is unlikely you are cruising around the cylinder 50
to 100 feet below the top waiting for your 2 minutes to expire.

It is much more likely that you are well below the top of the cylinder
looking for a great thermal (Also looking for other gliders) to climb
out the top of the cylinder as quickly as possible and get high after
leaving the cylinder.
If the thermal weakens after leaving you will head on course to find
the next thermal.

While I like unlimited hieght cylinders, the logic of the limited
height cylinder makes more sense to me. The limted hieght cylinder is
much more preferable because once you climb out the top you are
committed to getting on course quickly. Unlike an unlimited hieght
cylinder where everyone is climbing at perhaps only 25ft/min to get
maximum hieght for the start, that pretty much ensures a tight gaggle
of gliders for much longer period than the two minutes required in the
limited start hieght. Then add the limited visibilty due to being near
the cloud base to make a bad situation even worse. The unlimited
hieght cylinder also puts the last guys to launch at a disadvantage on
weaker days because they may not have the time to get the last 1000
feet of altitude at very slow climb rates.

Brian
HP16T

snip
*We are getting better with the graduated penalty if
below the finish height - ideally it should be a finish window that is
points-neutral within a reasonable altitude spread (if lower, then
subtract points - or add time - equal to the time that would have been
spent in the last thermal to get the height needed, for example).

Cheers,

Kirk
66

The points neutral window is an interesting idea. Probably requires a
bit more number crunching than I am up to but the idea of adding a
few points for coming in higher i.e. reverse low finish penalty might
have have some merit. The idea being that finishing anywhere within
say a 1000 ft altitude window should give you about the same points
would like you say be ideal.

My concern is that what we would like to be a simple solution starts
becoming complex.
The strength of the last thermal would probably have an effect on if
you should finish High or Low in the window for best points.
The scoring software could come up with the points adjustment based on
the actual last thermal, but then it becomes very difficult to
determine how to write the rule for it and how to determining how you
actually scored becomes even more complex. We already complain that it
is hard to determine our speeds as it is.
It would probably work, but like the adding 15minutes to the time on
course rule we tried, we probably wouldn't like it much.

Brian
HP16T