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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Neanderthat vs. Wuss Gate
Let me tell you where I'm coming from on this gate issue. I was CD'ing
one of the Montague nationals and we were using the finish line. The only practical location for the line was the edge of the X'ed-off runway, but there were several competitors tied down there (read cars, wives & kids) One of the wives complained about the low finishes coming right over her motor home and asked if there wasn't an FAR about that? I didn't have an answer, I still don't. As I understand the FAR's we are not allowed to fly over people below 500 feet unless we are in the act of landing. When we are driving in on the 50-foot gate, we are not in the act of landing, but we are over people at Montague and the same situation exists at Minden. If we were to move the line, say 500 feet away from the people, we would end up with a low and slow finisher landing in the sage brush. God forbid, if we were to have a mid-air and the wreckage went into the line, I guarantee you the feds would come down hard on what we are doing. The finish line seems to work OK at places like Hobbs, but I did have an incident there last summer. I was driving in hard toward the 50 foot finish line when a pilot from the other class called a rolling finish, coming from the opposite direction. We didn't even come close, but let's assume for the sake of discussion that we did run into each other. One pilot is below 500 feet and in the act of landing. The other pilot is below 500 feet and not in the act of landing. I know who's going to lose this one, old JJ. I have flown the finish cylinder at Reese, Parowan, Minden, Montague and Ephrata without a hitch. Everybody pulls up, slows up, and enters the pattern in an orderly fashion; low man goes in first. Based on my 30 years experience of using both gates and running contests, I would estimate the finish cylinder to be on the order of 2 to 3 times safer than the 50-foot finish line. Good management involves identifying problems and taking corrective action, before we have an accident. There is a better way to do this, let's bury the Neanderthal gate, once and for all. JJ Sinclair PS. It's not widely known, but you don't need to make the 500 foot minimum exactly at 1 mile. You will get a good finish anywhere inside the cylinder, just as soon as you pull up and climb above the 500 foot minimum. No penalty will apply, your clock just keeps running for a few more seconds. This interpretation has been blessed by the rules committee and the Byars scoring program works this way. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
LOL. Nice new thread title.
JJ, How do you feel about remote finish cylinders (away from the airport)? How about control points (last turnpoints) away from the airport? Do you think this would have any benefit? Have you flown either of these (presumably in other countries)? In article .com, wrote: Let me tell you where I'm coming from on this gate issue. I was CD'ing one of the Montague nationals and we were using the finish line. The only practical location for the line was the edge of the X'ed-off runway, but there were several competitors tied down there (read cars, wives & kids) One of the wives complained about the low finishes coming right over her motor home and asked if there wasn't an FAR about that? I didn't have an answer, I still don't. As I understand the FAR's we are not allowed to fly over people below 500 feet unless we are in the act of landing. When we are driving in on the 50-foot gate, we are not in the act of landing, but we are over people at Montague and the same situation exists at Minden. If we were to move the line, say 500 feet away from the people, we would end up with a low and slow finisher landing in the sage brush. God forbid, if we were to have a mid-air and the wreckage went into the line, I guarantee you the feds would come down hard on what we are doing. The finish line seems to work OK at places like Hobbs, but I did have an incident there last summer. I was driving in hard toward the 50 foot finish line when a pilot from the other class called a rolling finish, coming from the opposite direction. We didn't even come close, but let's assume for the sake of discussion that we did run into each other. One pilot is below 500 feet and in the act of landing. The other pilot is below 500 feet and not in the act of landing. I know who's going to lose this one, old JJ. I have flown the finish cylinder at Reese, Parowan, Minden, Montague and Ephrata without a hitch. Everybody pulls up, slows up, and enters the pattern in an orderly fashion; low man goes in first. Based on my 30 years experience of using both gates and running contests, I would estimate the finish cylinder to be on the order of 2 to 3 times safer than the 50-foot finish line. Good management involves identifying problems and taking corrective action, before we have an accident. There is a better way to do this, let's bury the Neanderthal gate, once and for all. JJ Sinclair PS. It's not widely known, but you don't need to make the 500 foot minimum exactly at 1 mile. You will get a good finish anywhere inside the cylinder, just as soon as you pull up and climb above the 500 foot minimum. No penalty will apply, your clock just keeps running for a few more seconds. This interpretation has been blessed by the rules committee and the Byars scoring program works this way. -- ------------+ Mark J. Boyd |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Mark James Boyd wrote:
How do you feel about remote finish cylinders (away from the airport)? Uh, remote finish cylinders or gates are not such a great idea, because you ultimately have to land at the airport. Of course they could put the floor way up high, but that would be really annoying. How about control points (last turnpoints) away from the airport? They are not needed for cylinders, but they are helpful for gates. Do you think this would have any benefit? Have you flown either of these (presumably in other countries)? The Annual CCSC Contest at Avenal is less than two months away. Everyone from first-timers to grizzled veterans is welcome, and they loves their finish gate. There is also a PASCO League contest at Avenal a weekend or two before, where you will likely experience a finish cylinder. Rather than engaging in endless speculation, why don't you just reserve the PW-5 and go for it? Marc |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In response to your first paragraph, at aiports all over the country
aircraft come within less than 500 feet of structures and people at speeds above 150 mph thousands of times each day, every day of the year. Midway, Reagan National, and Laguardia all have approaches that bring them over people and buildings. I have on many occasions watched landings from a park several hunderd feet from the threshold of one of Reagan National's runways. Planes pass overhead no more than 200 feet above the ground. The rule, as I recall, states "except for take-off and landing..." Note that most CDs post NOTAMs closing the airport during contest launch and recovery operations. This implies a tacit waiver for a variety of soaring related operations in the vicinity of the airport. As for a the owner of mobile home, parked on the airport during a scheduled, sanctioned soaring contest asking for a change in practices, I'd be tempted to point at the wheels and leave my answer at that. But that wouldn't be very diplo. Perhaps a better way to address it would be to require RVs stay out of the way of glider operations. You can park your RV here. This will avoid any conflict with aircraft. I'll bet the argument goes the other way... convenience over perceived safety issues. Its just a matter of crafting the either/or. As for the cylinder, in another thread someone suggested I not pull up after piercing the side, but just bleed off speed as I head towards the airport. Now I have pilots attacking me from below. How much drag does a ball turret gun cost? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Regarding the difficulty of sequencing gliders for landing after a
cylinder finish, this is exactly what gliders do every good soaring day. All the gliders arrive from all directions at about pattern altitude, do some sort of pattern entry, then land. Sometimes a bunch of gliders all do this at the same time. We practice this all the time, not just in contest flying. So at least this form of finish gets practiced all the time. Todd 3S |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
At 02:00 16 March 2005, Toad wrote:
Regarding the difficulty of sequencing gliders for landing after a cylinder finish, this is exactly what gliders do every good soaring day. Never had a problem myself on a typical non-contest day without a finish cylinder. So why do you think problems arise with cylinders in contest situations? My theory is that the modern GPS-enabled minimum-time tasks compress finishers more than the old system and the cylinder introduces just enough randomness to reshuffle the landing sequence from the finish sequence. The net result is a bit more 'pattern roulette' than I knew from gate finishes in the old AST world. Not a problem for pilots who exert good judgement and use the radio - potentially an issue for those who don't. 9B |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Andy Blackburn wrote: At 02:00 16 March 2005, Toad wrote: Regarding the difficulty of sequencing gliders for landing after a cylinder finish, this is exactly what gliders do every good soaring day. Never had a problem myself on a typical non-contest day without a finish cylinder. So why do you think problems arise with cylinders in contest situations? I have never had or seen a problem with the cylinder finish. It is also the only finish type that I have used, since I started racing in 2002 and fly in sports class with my 20 year old glider. I have seen plenty of "pattern roulette" at busy soaring sites on non-contest days. Most of those patterns are non-events. Everybody lands somewhere, leaving as much space as possible for the next guy. Todd |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NS Norfolk Gate 2 NATOPS - All Hands Memorize Immediately! | Yofuri | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 17th 04 05:38 AM |
Sources for Yellowed tagged Remote Gyro and Flux Gate. | Michelle P | Owning | 0 | July 18th 04 12:19 AM |
FS2004 gate problem | Quilljar | Simulators | 2 | June 1st 04 10:36 PM |
Showalter in Orlando charging $45 to open gate | Piperflyer | Piloting | 2 | February 24th 04 03:20 AM |
Leaving all engines running at the gate | John | Piloting | 12 | February 5th 04 03:46 AM |