Hard Deck

maanantai 29. tammikuuta 2018 23.24.17 UTC+2 Tango Eight kirjoitti:
Here's mine: Shame the offender at the pilots' meeting.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

I believe this has been done at least once in some international event and it works. Pilots could write the competition number of pilot flying dangerously to a blackboard at briefing room wall (anonymously, if they wish). After walking in the offending pilot would see his competition number written, sometimes by several pilots, and next day he would fly like a gentleman. You wouldn't believe what social pressure can achieve.

Could do that for excessive leeching too.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:00:07 PM UTC-5, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:

The 1958 WGC Open Class was won on a day like that, except that
E.G. Haase (as relayed personally to me) made a string of very
low saves (albeit all over very landable terrain) and was thus able
to tiptoe his way to victory that day. He was then able to defend his
lead until the contest ended. It was a brilliant flight, not luck. Some
pilots are just better at that kind of flying than others. For example,
in Belgium, they have a maximum altitude of 3,000' due to
controlled airspace over the entire country. Those guys fly low a
lot.

Did he mention his thermal detector?! This is pretty good stuff, especially the last two paragraphs. The good ole days
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...20-%200010.PDF

On Wednesday, January 31, 2018 at 5:39:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Seems there are good ideas ...... and the only thing you know is "if you do the same thing you will get the same result"

What is to stop any CD from making a Hard Deck at any Regional (maybe without penalties to begin with, just verbal flogging) - see if it draws people or if the pilots like it - was it safer.

Why must we buy it when we can rent it first. Seems to me Regional s is we need to experiment more.

Rules are what competion is all about - imagine a chess game where you move any piece how ever you feel - it is about optimizing performance within the constraint of the Rules - without Rules, you have an outing not a contest.

WH

I really believe that imposing a hard deck will not draw anyone new to contests. I think they simply don't care about it. if they want to compete, the absence of a hard deck isn't what's holding them back. if we are talking about a pilot who doesn't want to compete, there's not one single one out there who abstains from competition because there's no hard deck. no, i don't think a hard deck and contest participation have any correlation. The effect will be this: Imposing oa hard deck will **** off a bunch of current active competitors. they won't stop racing because of it though.

what would the hard deck be? I think they tossed out the number 500 AGL. i am wholeheartedly against the hard deck idea, but 500 agl seems like a reasonable number. i maintain that just because there's a hard deck, it won't stop people from circling below it if they think they have a fighting chance to stay out of a field. over an airport, maybe it's a different story. so if the hard deck doesn't prevent bad behavior, what does it do? it punishes people. punishments are designed to dissuade people from doing "bad" things. but this won't stop people from circling below the hard deck, so why instate it?

I want to get one more thing out the

Out of all the hours of contest flights flown each year, how many minutes of circling is really done below the proposed hard deck?

Out of all the people who get below 500 feet agl in contests each year, how many of them attempted to circle? i'm going to stick my neck out an say extremely few.

See, what i'm saying is that you are chasing a miniscule figure with the hard deck idea. You'll say, "if it saves even one life it's worth it". you're not wrong. i agree that saving lives is important. i think it would be much more effective to police it by confronting the individuals who seem to be the big offenders.

I'm going to say this. and before i do i want to remind everyone that i'm a new dad, and i'm not into taking unnecessary risks. i'm careful. nothing ****es me off more than seeing someone get onto the airport and not get speed points, UNLESS their approach to the field was actually scary. equally, if someone was able to make a low save and make it home, but just barely busted the hard deck in doing so, can you imagine? they made it around in my eyes. and yes i acknowledge the fact that there was some risk there. but if the pilot has the skills and is willing to accept the risk, i have no problem with it. if i see john seymour (for example, although maybe he wouldn't) circling at 480 feet at a flatland site, over a great field, i've got nothing to say about it. now if a 19 year old flying his first nationals did the same thing.... i have a problem, hard deck or not.

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 3:14:06 AM UTC-5, CindyB wrote:

I too know many local pilots who avoid racing due to 'crazy behavior'.

Anyone who thinks crazy behavior is in any way necessary and/or advantageous in competition flying simply hasn't studied this problem... at least this is how it looks to me. Maybe BB or someone else disagrees with me and has the data to convince me otherwise (in that case, contact me offline please, I am genuinely interested).

Consistent efficiency and *insight* is what wins contests. Wish I had a little more of that at times :-).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...ety_Report.pdf

Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.

The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.

Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.

So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.

And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.

(That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)

John Cochrane

At 14:58 01 February 2018, Clay wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 11:00:07 PM UTC-5, Michael
Opitz wrote:
At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:

The 1958 WGC Open Class was won on a day like that, except
that
E.G. Haase (as relayed personally to me) made a string of very
low saves (albeit all over very landable terrain) and was thus
able
to tiptoe his way to victory that day. He was then able to defend
his
lead until the contest ended. It was a brilliant flight, not luck.
Some
pilots are just better at that kind of flying than others. For
example,
in Belgium, they have a maximum altitude of 3,000' due to
controlled airspace over the entire country. Those guys fly low a
lot.

Did he mention his thermal detector?! This is pretty good stuff,
especially the last two paragraphs. The good ole days
https://www.flightglobal.com/FlightP...58/1958-1-%20-
%200010.PDF

Thanks for the link. No, E.G. never mentioned the thermal detector
to me. He talked very extensively about the HKS-3, and what they
did to tune it though. They used wing warping as opposed to
ailerons in order to minimize interference drag. The canopy
didn't have a vent or window so as not to disturb the air in front
of the wing root. He had a vent air exhaust in the tail-cone, but
could only get ventilation air through a scoop in the wheel well
when the gear was down. So, he generally thermalled with the
gear down for cockpit ventilation, and cruised with the gear
retracted. He said that everyone thought he was crazy to
always thermal with the gear down, but that was his only access
to fresh air as the rest of the glider was sealed up so tightly. He
told me to always have a vent air extraction exit that was 50%
larger than the inlet vent so as to prevent positive pressure
buildup inside the glider.

That was back in 1972 when I was 21. I stayed at his house as
a guest for ~a week, and flew with him and his club in Vogtareuth
Germany. I even became the first person other that E.G.
or his partner allowed to fly his ASK-14 motorglider. I think I
logged about ~20 hours flying in the German Alps with it. Those
were very good times for me...

RO

I'm sorry to disagree. Occasional very low saves, flying over dicey terrain, flying through thunderstorms, marginal final glides to whatever the rules allow, are part of winning contests too. Yes, this will not turn a mediocre pilot into a winner. But winners have to take whatever calculated risks the rules allow. Stories on all of these abound.

John Cochrane

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 9:18:45 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...ety_Report.pdf

Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.

The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.

Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.

So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.

And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.

(That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)

John Cochrane

Your asking us to support your views after we read your below disclaimer?

Disclaimers
This is a summary of information available to the rules committee as of the November meeting,
collected for the purpose of examining rules and procedures in the interests of improving future
contest safety. This is not the NTSB, and we have not done any independent accident
investigation. Errors are likely. This is a report from the safety subcommittee (me) to the rules
committee. Recommendations are mine only, and not endorsed by the RC.


Then John, you state above "Errors are likely" and then with your below statement, I question why it's even being discussed?

"""Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet."""

If your wishing support( which I would heartily do) please show us why it's needed with reasonable, well-founded facts but please not with unreasonable and illogical statements which are tainted with radical extremist views. :)).

Best. Tom #711.

On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 8:18:45 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...ety_Report.pdf

Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.

The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.

Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.

So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.

And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.

(That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)

John Cochrane

I agree with John, and add that I cannot understand the distinction between existing airspace rules and a 500' exclusion. Yes it is one more. Is one more bad and one less good? Then let's also get rid of altitude, finish line heights, cloud restrictions, SUA restrictions. Like an un-drug tested Olympics. See just how crazy people will get. I'm guessing that a number of people in this discussion would like to see that.