While I am not going to argue against higher finishes for certain classes, I
am going to make a strong argument against the 500-foot 2-mile donut.

I will preface my remarks by saying that I am not a hot-shot contest pilot,
but I enjoy flying in club contests and the occasional regional. I have
always been very conservative on my final glides, even when I'm not flying
over the notoriously unlandable terrain around my home field..

The 500-foot 2-mile donut was used at this year's Region 9, where I flew in
Sports class. I have to say that I found it harder to judge this finish
than any other. On every flight, I found myself doing mental arithmetic,
trying to figure out whether I was going to make the 500-foot limit, even
though my flight computer said I had the field made with my usual
conservative margins.

The problem is not the 500-foot limit, but the 2-mile donut. My flight
computer cannot computer the height required to make this type of finish. I
suspect many others can't either. The result is that the new rule puts
extra workload on the pilot during the busy final glide when he or she
should be concentrating on other things.

I found it to be a great distraction and did not give me any feeling of
improved safety.

Whatever the finish altitude is deemed to be safe, it should apply to the
standard finish gate. Finishing 2 miles out makes no sense to me and makes
the final glide more complex than it should be.

I should also add that, on a couple of days, after making the 2-mile finish
at Hobbs, I was now approachingt the field at a couple of hundred feet in
the opposite direction from standard and 15-m classes.

Sorry, I.m not convinced!

Mike

ASW 20 WA



"John Cochrane" wrote in message
om...
Fellow US pilots:

This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains
a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about
it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less
experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and
world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for
your contests, you have to voice your opinion.

Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.

Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation,
5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet.
You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to
properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From
here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you
find. Common sense says "stop, look for a thermal, and land in this
good field." But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call
you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not
safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.

The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you
don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make
your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to
the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles
out, do that. Forget the race.

This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The
race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet
above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just
as challenging.

The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports
class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it
makes it to nationals.

For more details, including accident statistics, see my article "Safer
Finishes" in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website,

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....rs/#For_glider

I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm
sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ

FAQ:

1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.

We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50
feet situation will still take lots of judgment.

There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from "pilot
judgment" decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used
to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits,
and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question
whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban
the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth.

Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive
experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national
level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the
case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are
explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.

2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away

This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish
can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.

Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish,
but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80
kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes
more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have.

3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse.

a) Pulling up over the line.

Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots
racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point.
That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the
whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special
use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the
whole way.

b) Traffic problems.

Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will
interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen
now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But
moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from
thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on
popping up at the last moment.

c) Heads-down

Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not
revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the
airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the
donut.

4. This isn't the number one problem.

It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number
one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are
in the US a distant third.

Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one
problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the
number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and
avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly
errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the
rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost
to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer.

5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed
points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty
or something?

The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when
the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove
"but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points" from the
mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the
same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the
airport.

6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out
of the kitchen.

Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that
physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep
soaring exiting, vote against this rule.


Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no
connection with the rules committee.

John Cochrane (BB)