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

Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old August 14th 13, 03:43 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 6:39:41 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
I like the free start height option. It goes nicely with open start times and will really reward pilots for finding and centering lift. Also may break up the pack and provide interesting tactics.

And sorry for the title of my thread but the beating IGC rules are taking on RAS and in other mediums from certain US pilots needed some balance ;-).
Sean

F2


Unlimited start heights are unfair to the guy/girl at the back of the grid. Minden and even Hobbs on occasion have cloudbases above 17,500'. All 8 IGC contests I have flown have used height limited starts- usually 1200-2000m.
Richard Walters

  #22  
Old August 14th 13, 10:32 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:40:39 PM UTC-7, Jerzy wrote:

If we have limit of 90 or 100kt and start line for FAI class then no one will dive like in old times at VNE, it is easier to control speed then time.

Two minutes limit is removing two safety futures- vertical separation and horizontal separation as all are trying to be for 2 minutes below specific altitude, in addition it is forcing all pilots in to the same area of limited radius with no vertical separation and very close proximity I think it works opposite to safety.

Yes, we need start altitude limit in cases of very high cloud base, blue thermals or (wave 2012 WGC Uvalde) to give all pilots the same chance, but US start cylinder is very unsafe place to be.

Jerzy Szemplinski


So your specific suggestion is:

1) Reset the MSH suggestion in the rules to, say, 8000' MSL. It would effectively be top of lift or cloud base on many contests in the eastern US. You'd either live with the fact that you'll sometimes get pre-start gaggles congregating at the front edge of the cylinder just barely clear of clouds - or provide for the same penalty for violating the cloud clearance FAR as for violating airspace FARs.

2) Re-set the speed limit in the start cylinder to 90 knots IAS calculated from the log file. You'd have to base it on a standard atmosphere calculation and an estimate for wind based on aggregate circling speed differentials as best as can be estimated from all the log files at the closest time available if IAS isn't available directly in each log - or require logs that include IAS if we don't require it today.

3) Based on 2), you no longer need a 2 minute rule because an 90-knot dive into the top of cylinder at 8,000 feet isn't a concern, since you'll probably be heading out on course at no less than 70.

Is that a correct summary?

  #23  
Old August 14th 13, 10:33 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 2:32:27 AM UTC-7, wrote:

Correction in #1 - 8,000' AGL.


So your specific suggestion is:



1) Reset the MSH suggestion in the rules to, say, 8000' MSL. It would effectively be top of lift or cloud base on many contests in the eastern US. You'd either live with the fact that you'll sometimes get pre-start gaggles congregating at the front edge of the cylinder just barely clear of clouds - or provide for the same penalty for violating the cloud clearance FAR as for violating airspace FARs.



2) Re-set the speed limit in the start cylinder to 90 knots IAS calculated from the log file. You'd have to base it on a standard atmosphere calculation and an estimate for wind based on aggregate circling speed differentials as best as can be estimated from all the log files at the closest time available if IAS isn't available directly in each log - or require logs that include IAS if we don't require it today.



3) Based on 2), you no longer need a 2 minute rule because an 90-knot dive into the top of cylinder at 8,000 feet isn't a concern, since you'll probably be heading out on course at no less than 70.



Is that a correct summary?


  #25  
Old August 14th 13, 01:29 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean F (F2)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 573
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

Great post Jerzy. We have very few pilots with true FAI rules experience. We should listen to their perspectives very carefully....

FAI start line solves many problems...
  #26  
Old August 14th 13, 01:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Sean F (F2)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 573
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

Richard,

Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)
  #27  
Old August 14th 13, 02:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 33
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 5:32:50 AM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Richard,
Why? Any start opening 15 minutes after the last launch has the potential of being unfair on a weak day (loosing the gaggle). This is just part of the nature of soaring. Sometimes you have to do it yourself! ;-)


Sean,
There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled
is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue.
Richard Walters
  #28  
Old August 14th 13, 05:05 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Leonard[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,076
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:05:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Sean, There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue. Richard Walters

I have been last off, and 6 or 7 of the 15 minutes were spent on tow because of a weak towplane and not finding any lift to get off in. Finally got off at 2K AGL in a measly weak thermal. I now have 8 or 9 minutes to climb 6000+ feet and fly to the front half of the start cylinder because the drop zone is not even in the start cylinder for the day. It is not so much the weak, low days that can make an unlimited height start unfair. It is the taller days. Where thermals are farther apart. And as others have pointed out, there may only be one good thermal in the front half of your cylinder..

I am with Rick. Limited start height is good. Option to climb out the top or run out the side is good. We need to educate pilots that it is much easier and more effieicent to stay 500 or even 1000 feet below the top until you are ready to climb out the top, if that is your choice. Why? Do you really think you can "feel" the thermal running around at 100 knots with your dive brakes out 100 feet below the top of the cylinder? If you are well below the top of the cylinder, you don't need to be watching the altimeter. Leave. Cruise around a bit. Get back into the thermal and give yourself time to get centered before going out the top. Your climb rate will be better from the time you actually do start until you leave that first climb.

As with so many other rules, pilot behavior can and will test the edges of any rule. You the pilot can choose to make the rule safe or dangerous.

Just my 2 cents.

Steve Leonard

  #29  
Old August 14th 13, 09:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 220
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:05:42 AM UTC-7, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Wednesday, August 14, 2013 8:05:10 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Sean, There is the nature of soaring, and then there is gross unfairness. To have someone starting 10,000' above you 15 minutes after the last launched rolled is absurd. On weak low days the CD has the potential to delay the task opening to allow the last launchers time to get to a reasonable altitude. Attempts at a fair start can and should be made. Open class has no gaggle to loose and some of us don't fly with gaggles in 18m and 15m, so the "unfairness" is simply an altitude issue. Richard Walters



I have been last off, and 6 or 7 of the 15 minutes were spent on tow because of a weak towplane and not finding any lift to get off in. Finally got off at 2K AGL in a measly weak thermal. I now have 8 or 9 minutes to climb 6000+ feet and fly to the front half of the start cylinder because the drop zone is not even in the start cylinder for the day. It is not so much the weak, low days that can make an unlimited height start unfair. It is the taller days. Where thermals are farther apart. And as others have pointed out, there may only be one good thermal in the front half of your cylinder.



I am with Rick. Limited start height is good. Option to climb out the top or run out the side is good. We need to educate pilots that it is much easier and more effieicent to stay 500 or even 1000 feet below the top until you are ready to climb out the top, if that is your choice. Why? Do you really think you can "feel" the thermal running around at 100 knots with your dive brakes out 100 feet below the top of the cylinder? If you are well below the top of the cylinder, you don't need to be watching the altimeter. Leave. Cruise around a bit. Get back into the thermal and give yourself time to get centered before going out the top. Your climb rate will be better from the time you actually do start until you leave that first climb..



As with so many other rules, pilot behavior can and will test the edges of any rule. You the pilot can choose to make the rule safe or dangerous.



Just my 2 cents.

Steve Leonard


The simple implication of raising the start height is to increase the time lag from last launch to gate open. For starts up to 17,500, just accounting for tow time, search time and climb time in a thermal that is 2 standard deviations below the mean in strength you'd be talking 45 minutes to an hour depending under typical circumstances - and that's under pretty much ideal conditions in terms of a pilot finding a climb. That's what you'd need to do if you want to let the last guys on the grid get up to start height. Much shorter and you run a big risk of most of the field heading out on course while the last guys off the grid are still climbing.

This may not be all that desirable, depending on the day. You only rarely see pilots getting a floor to ceiling climb right out of the start cylinder, so it might be preferred to let people get out on course and get up to altitude over a few climbs rather that ensuring by rule that most everybody can make a full climb to cloud base first.

I've also been thinking that a lower speed limit in place of the two minute rule might be hard to enforce and would certainly lead to some unhappiness for pilots who get caught in the speed trap, just due to inherent imprecision in estimating IAS off of a flight log.

Since I got my integrated two minute timer in both my computers I am less concerned about the timing workload. Also, the analysis I did a couple of years ago comparing starts through the top of the cylinder versus the edge (before versus after the rule changed) showed a very significant reduction in pre-start congestion and gaggling.

9B
  #30  
Old August 14th 13, 10:58 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 192
Default Absurdity of US Rules (in fairness to FAI)

Jerzy:
Perhaps you misunderstand the rule. You do NOT have to stay below start top height the whole time before the start. You only need to stay down there for two minutes. So in these situations, fly around above MSH to your heart's content, come down for two whole minutes, and then start.
John Cochrane
 




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
Junior World Championships - FAI Rules Absurdity Kevin Christner Soaring 37 August 15th 13 09:46 AM
SSA Rules Poll and Rules Committee Election Ken Sorenson Soaring 2 October 6th 06 03:27 PM
US Rules Committee Election and Rules Poll Ken Sorenson Soaring 1 September 27th 05 10:52 PM
FLASH! U.S.A. Rules Committee to Address Rules Complexity? SoarPoint Soaring 1 February 3rd 04 03:36 AM
New SRA Site - New 2003 Rules Minutes and 2004 Rules Summary Ken Kochanski Soaring 0 December 17th 03 04:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:14 PM.


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