Safety finish rule & circle radius

As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
modification.

Background:

On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
200ft/mile.

About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.

Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.

At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
Several other pilots related similar stories.

After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.

So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
no matter what you do.


Any thoughts on this?

Frank(TA)

I agree with you Frank.

I didn't grok the safety finish rule the first time I read it,
precisely because I didn't see what use it could be with bigger (read:
problematic) storms. Making 5 miles the minimum, and letting the CD
pick the size, is the logical solution.

~ted/2NO

Frank,

My circumstances were identical to yours that day.

Keeping the 5sm radius as a minimum, and specifying a maximum radius
the CD can call, is well worth considering. The only issue I can see
is the clear communicating of the "CD chosen" radius along with the
announcement that the Safety Finish was in effect. I remember how
hectic the radio traffic was during that time. This could be helped a
little by allowing only 5 or 10 (and/or 15?) mile radii to be called
by CD. Pilots could anticipate one of these values...as opposed to
listening for and clearly understanding for example a "7 mile safety
finish is in effect" from the CD.

Great issue for more discussion.

Curt - 95


On Sep 7, 1:57 pm, Frank wrote:
As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
modification.

Background:

On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
200ft/mile.

About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.

Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.

At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
Several other pilots related similar stories.

After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.

So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
no matter what you do.

Any thoughts on this?

Frank(TA)

On Sep 8, 1:07 am, CLewis95 wrote:
Frank,

My circumstances were identical to yours that day.

Keeping the 5sm radius as a minimum, and specifying a maximum radius
the CD can call, is well worth considering. The only issue I can see
is the clear communicating of the "CD chosen" radius along with the
announcement that the Safety Finish was in effect. I remember how
hectic the radio traffic was during that time. This could be helped a
little by allowing only 5 or 10 (and/or 15?) mile radii to be called
by CD. Pilots could anticipate one of these values...as opposed to
listening for and clearly understanding for example a "7 mile safety
finish is in effect" from the CD.

Great issue for more discussion.

Curt - 95

On Sep 7, 1:57 pm, Frank wrote:



As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
modification.

Background:

On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
200ft/mile.

About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.

Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.

At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
Several other pilots related similar stories.

After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.

So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
no matter what you do.

Any thoughts on this?

Frank(TA)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, I agree with Curt Lewis that perhaps a 5 OR 10 mile radius
would be less confusing. I would also emphasize that it would be a
good idea for the CD to have a good discussion of the rule on the
first day that T-storms are possible. I can attest to the fact that 5
miles was not enough on the day in question. In my case, 10 miles
would have been plenty but you have to be tuned in to the fact that a
safety finish may be called, have a good understanding of the rule and
then the CD has to call it at the first signs of approaching danger.
That in itself is very difficult because these cells have a way of
developing so fast.

JIm Price - 77

On Sep 8, 8:38 am, wrote:
On Sep 8, 1:07 am, CLewis95 wrote:





Frank,

My circumstances were identical to yours that day.

Keeping the 5sm radius as a minimum, and specifying a maximum radius
the CD can call, is well worth considering. The only issue I can see
is the clear communicating of the "CD chosen" radius along with the
announcement that the Safety Finish was in effect. I remember how
hectic the radio traffic was during that time. This could be helped a
little by allowing only 5 or 10 (and/or 15?) mile radii to be called
by CD. Pilots could anticipate one of these values...as opposed to
listening for and clearly understanding for example a "7 mile safety
finish is in effect" from the CD.

Great issue for more discussion.

Curt - 95

On Sep 7, 1:57 pm, Frank wrote:

As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
modification.

Background:

On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
200ft/mile.

About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.

Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.

At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
Several other pilots related similar stories.

After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.

So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
no matter what you do.

Any thoughts on this?

Frank(TA)- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Frank, I agree with Curt Lewis that perhaps a 5 OR 10 mile radius
would be less confusing. I would also emphasize that it would be a
good idea for the CD to have a good discussion of the rule on the
first day that T-storms are possible. I can attest to the fact that 5
miles was not enough on the day in question. In my case, 10 miles
would have been plenty but you have to be tuned in to the fact that a
safety finish may be called, have a good understanding of the rule and
then the CD has to call it at the first signs of approaching danger.
That in itself is very difficult because these cells have a way of
developing so fast.

JIm Price - 77- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's a tough situation. In 20 years of racing I've never been in a
situation where the safety finish was in effect. So, many (most?) of
us probably are only vaguely aware that the option exists and have
only a loose grasp on the rule.

I think the comments so far make sense. Is there anything that we
could do to reduce/eliminate the mental gymnastics required to figure
out the floor of the cone? It's all very simple sitting here at the
dining room table with coffee in hand, but under the gun with a Cu
Nimb staring you in the face...

I'm thinking maybe in terms of the inverted layer cake approach which
typifies Class B and C airspace. The likely options are 5, 10, and
15 mile radius cylinders. The minumum altitude at each would be set
at the appropriate glideslope beforehand.

Since there's no competitive advantage to going any further than the
outer radius of the cylinder, having a cone rather than a layer cake
doesn't really make practical sense to me.

P3

It's a tough situation. In 20 years of racing I've never been in a
situation where the safety finish was in effect. So, many (most?) of
us probably are only vaguely aware that the option exists and have
only a loose grasp on the rule.

Wow! I've personally experienced at least three different 'safety
fiinish' situations in eastern regionals and nationals. Come to think
of it, two of these were at CCSC - maybe my home soaring area isn't
quite as benign as I think! ;-).

Regarding the altitudes, it really doesn't make too much difference.
When you are faced with the situation, you get as much altitude as you
can, and then try and nick the cylinder without scaring yourself too
badly. Personally I like the cone idea, as it is easy to remember '5
miles per thousand feet'. With the current 5sm radius cylinder, If
you are more than 1000' above the home field (and this is usually easy
to confirm with the flight computer), you are good to go. At 10
miles, you need twice that. In between, you have to interpolate, but
its not too bad. Also, if the rule were very simple (like 200ft/
mile), then it might be possible to program it into soaring software
so you could simply enable a checkbox to change the glide calculations
from whatever you have as a polar to show '200ft per mile'.

Just my $0.02

Frank(TA)

On Sep 8, 11:08 am, Frank wrote:

Regarding the altitudes, it really doesn't make too much difference.
In between, you have to interpolate, but its not too bad. Also, if
the rule were very simple (like 200ft/
mile), then it might be possible to program it into soaring software
so you could simply enable a checkbox to change the glide calculations
from whatever you have as a polar to show '200ft per mile'.

Just my $0.02

Frank(TA)

But that's the rub. Again "not too bad" is a relative term. With
high workload and stressful conditions, I've seen plenty of people
lose the ability to do even simple math. My thought is that just
having one number to worry about (e.g. 10 miles and 1550 on the
altimeter) makes it much easier. I can't see any scenario where it
would be worthwhile to go to, say, 7 miles and then try to climb up,
especially when the conditions warrant a safety finish at 10 miles.
No?

As far as having "soaring software" to accomodate this stuff, it's
becoming a non-trivial exercise to support all of the various rules
for different countries. All the more reason to make it a KISS
rule.

P3

But that's the rub. Again "not too bad" is a relative term. With
high workload and stressful conditions, I've seen plenty of people
lose the ability to do even simple math. My thought is that just
having one number to worry about (e.g. 10 miles and 1550 on the
altimeter) makes it much easier. I can't see any scenario where it
would be worthwhile to go to, say, 7 miles and then try to climb up,
especially when the conditions warrant a safety finish at 10 miles.
No?

I'm just guessing here, but isn't the point behind the downward slope
to the cylinder to keep pilots who are below the floor from having to
glide all the way to the airport to get a finish? With a flat floor
you end up having to find a thermal (possibly under an overcast) to
reach the floor or do a normal finish at ground zero. So say the
safety cylinder is 10 miles and 2000' and you are at 1900' with no
possibility of climbing. What would you do? The temptation would be to
try to get home.

I'm also guessing that the reason the safety cylinder wasn't
originally conceived with the possibility for a larger radius is to
keep from catching too many pilots between the safety cylinder and the
finish line when it is invoked by the CD. I can imagine all kinds of
protests in that scenario.

9B

On Sep 7, 2:57 pm, Frank wrote:
As a result of a somewhat harrowing experience at the recent Sports
Class Nationals at CCSC, I have been thinking about possible
modifications to the current saftety finish rule. The recent post
regarding the upcoming rules committee vacancy prompted me to post my
thinking. I would be particularly interested in what the candidates
for the vacancy have to say about the original rule and my proposed
modification.

Background:

On one of the days at the 2007 Sports Class Nationals, a very large T-
storm decided to visit the home field just as the fleet was trying to
return. The CD announced that a safety finish was in effect. The
safety finish 'cylinder' is actually a 5-statute-mile radius vertical
cylinder with a conical base. The tip of the conical 'floor' is
located at the home airport and it has a slope equal to (I think)
200ft/mile.

About half the fleet (including myself) made it home, and the rest
landed at other airports or in surrounding fields. However, the storm
was so large that it was very difficult, if not impossible, to achieve
a valid safety finish without seriously compromising safety.

Looking back on that day, it appears the safety finish option, as
applied in this case, had the effect of degrading, rather than
enhancing, safety. Because the storm was much larger than 10 miles
across, pilots were forced to continue into the storm area if they
wanted to take advantage of the safety finish rule.

At about 10 miles out, I had way more than enough altitude to get
home. Lacking an accurate assessment of the seriousness of the
situation, I chose to continue toward the home field, thinking I would
nick the 5 mile ring, then turn back and land at an alternate
airport. As it turned out, by the time I got to the 5 mile point, I
felt it was safer (i.e. not quite as life-threatening) to continue
ahead than it was to turn back. This was a dubious choice at best,
and the fact that I managed to survive the experience has a lot more
to do with luck and (almost) terminal stupidity than anything else.
Several other pilots related similar stories.

After thinking about this a while, I wondered why the radius of the
'cylinder' has to be a fixed number. In our case, if the radius had
been set to 10 or 15 miles, everyone could have easily landed at
surrounding airports after penetrating the cylinder above the cone
floor. At 10 miles out I was more than twice the height of the cone
'floor', and I know others were at the same place and altitude.

So, my proposal is to modify the safety finish rule to let the CD
decide the radius to be used for the cylinder whenever it is
activated, with maybe a 5 mile minimum. I really don't see the need
to establish a maximum radius, as I think most modern gliders have a
glide ratio greater than 200 feet/mile. If you are above the cone
floor at X miles out, then more than likely you will stay above the
floor until you descend to land (if not at the home field, then
somewhere else). If you are below the floor, then continuing inward
makes sense until you get near the bad weather, at which point it
should be very obvious you aren't going to get a valid safety finish
no matter what you do.

Any thoughts on this?

Frank(TA)

Why not let the pilot pick it?
Then nobody has to exercise judgement or pay a penalty for not doing
so.
I admit to being a bit sarcastic with my friend Franks suggestion but
have a problem with this kind of thinking.
Each of us must make judgements on each flight about compromising
"safety" for more points.
Consider another pilot on the same day. He saw the weather developing
and flew his task in a manner that permitted him to make a finish at
the home airport without all the terror reported by some others. He
finished well before the assigned task time and risked a big score
penalty in the interest of a safer flight.
Should we penalize him on the score sheet because he did not continue
to tempt the storm?
I think not.
Biased observation- I was that pilot.
Most of those at CCSC who scared themselves would probably admit to
some judgement error when they put on their honest hat.
Others flew on hoping for a miracle to get them a finish after they
flew too long. Pigs get slaughtered.
Possibly an option of 5 or 10 miles makes some sense, but my
experience is that one can usually find a safe way to get a safety
finish within the 5 mile radius. If you can't, either you exercised
poor judgement( TAT type day where you can quit), or you were just
unlucky.
The safety finish was created in response to watching "GPS Final
Glides" in storms at Uvalde and has served us pretty well.
I just hope we don't get too carried away with dumbing down our sport.
Airmanship Matters.
The RC will be considering this at the Fall meeting.
Good discussion.
UH

After hearing about this event from several of my buddies who were
there, I wrote the rules committee with my views on it. As usual,
these are suggestions, not a campaign platform, and I'm curious what
others think of them.

Short version: keep the 5 mile safety finish as is. Expanding it adds
a hornets nest of problems and just turns the race into a crapshoot.
Add an explicit provision that the CD may call off the task, even if
the start gate has opened, if it is impossible to complete the task
safely or legally. I wasn't there, so I don't know if this was the
right decision at Cesar Creek, but the events suggest that this is a
tool the CD should have

Here's what I wrote the RC:

No need to rehash here the events of Cesar Creek this year. Last
year, Cesar Creek also had two days of severe thunderstorms with mass
landouts, and similarly miraculous lack of major damage. The
thunderstorm day at Tonopah 15M is also relevant for our thinking
here. I gather there were also a few days at Uvalde 15M in which lines
of thunderstorms blocked legs, and many pilots who finished did so by
taking substantial risks.

Proposal: Explicitly allow the CD to call off the task, even if the
start has opened.

The CD has this authority now, since there is no rule against it. If
anything happens, you can be sure that the FAA, NTSB, and lawyers will
think the CD had the authority to get on the radio and stop the race.
Let's clarify this fact so that worrying about the rules doesn't cloud
what is already a hard decision for CDs.

I know that some people will worrry that CDs will be too quick to call
off the task. For that reason, and because few CDs will have much
personal experience with this kind of rare extreme weather, the rule
should come with explicit guidelines in the CD guide or the appendix
to the rules. I'd write this:

The task should be called off if it cannot be completed safely and
legally. Examples include widespread thunderstorms, squall lines,
tornadoes, strong turbulence, extensive IFR conditions, or extreme
winds, that pilots cannot avoid, either because such conditions block
a mandatory leg, or because they will cover the 5 mile safety-finish
radius around the finish airport.

The point is both to encourage pilots to land rather than press on in
such conditions, and to ensure a fair contest. We don't want to award
points for flying in obviously dangerous conditions such as these.

Isolated thunderstorms are avoidable, an accepted part of contest
soaring, and should not cause cancellation of the task, even if pilots
must make substantial detours to avoid them, or wait for them to
pass. The safety finish should be used rather than day cancellation
if the airport is unsafe, but safe conditions exist within 5 miles of
the airport. Task cancellation should be reserved for unsafe or
illegal weather, not weak weather.

The task should not be called off once the minimum time of a TAT or
MAT has expired, or once any pilot has completed an assigned task. In
these cases, canceling the day is unfair to pilots who recognized the
potential for severe weather and started early. It was possible to
complete the task. Task cancellation should not unfairly reward late
starters.

When there is the potential for severe weather, the CD should monitor
weather radar and reports. In such conditions, the CD is encouraged to
report severe weather by radio to pilots, and to allow pilots to relay
this information.

Of course, pilots must bear the ultimate responsibility for the
decision to abandon the task in severe weather, and should be reminded
of this fact. The CD cannot evaluate conditions on course as well as
pilots can do so. The fact that the CD has not called off the task is
no guarantee that conditions are safe!

(end of suggested guidelines)


I do not like the idea of expanding the safety finish, which is a
competing proposal for dealing with this issue. First of all, if it's
unsafe in the last 5 miles, it's probably not that great in the last
10 miles either. Second, this doesn't deal with squall lines etc. on
course, or widespread bad weather. Third, the fundamental point is
fairness - the day should be canceled, really, because it's unfair to
race in blatantly dangerous conditions. If we open the "finish" to 10
or even 20 miles, or suddenly allow people to drift downwind for
distance points, we make a mockery of the race. The poor guy who
sacrificed a lot of speed to get upwind and make the 1 or 5 mile
finish, or set up to get around the thunderstorm, now gets destroyed
if the gamblers who went downwind suddenly get a break and don't have
to make the last 10 or 20 miles. If we have to resort to these sorts
of "finishes", we should just get out of the business of racing and
awarding points.

I worded this rule as "call off the task" not "call off the day". At
Tonopah, the right thing to do was to recall the gliders, do a roll
call that everyone had made it back, and then attempt a new task off
to the southwest, where conditions were fine. It might not work; you
might not get everyone back for a fair start. But the rules should not
disallow it if it can happen.


John Cochrane