Well, I'm still on the fence, even after wading through the last 100 or so
posts. I see positives AND negatives in both sides of the Gate vs. Cylinder
argument. I appreciate folks like JJ and OC taking the time to put some
structure around the argument - maybe we can stick to that approach?

Let's break this into two different issues:

1. Arrival over the field with insufficient energy with the "50 foot gate."
This certainly a topic worth addressing, but I'm not sure the cylinder is
the only answer. A (seemingly) simple approach is to just raise the floor to
some other number, say 200 feet for argument's sake. I'm not suggesting this
is what we should do, but it does seem that the issue of arriving at the
airport with an altitude safety margin can be addressed in different ways.

2. So, I'm really drawn to the discussion about avoiding midairs. I'm not
convinced by either JJs logic or OCs rebuttal - yet. Here's my thinking.
Both approaches are, in practical terms, a line. One just happens to be
curved. Okay, starting to sound like Bill Clinton here... hang on. By this I
mean the following:

- On MOST (not all) days, the majority of finishers are approaching from the
same quadrant. The one exception is the MAT, but even then, there is usually
a preferred quadrant, either based on geography, soaring conditions on the
day, location of the close-in turnpoint, etc. For all practical purposes,
we're all headed for a reasonably small chunk of airspace at the end of the
flight. When we talk of a midair, we have to think of a number of different
scenarios:

* Lateral convergence on the finish run (ie. two ships at the same altitude
converging wingtip to wingtip)

* Vertical convergence on the finish run (ie. two ships at different
altitudes converging canopy to belly)

* Head on finish run (no clarification required)

* Pattern vs. finisher (ie. one ship on finish run conflicting with others
in the pattern)

I'm still doodling this stuff on paper, but so far, I can see some pros and
cons to both. One thing that is obvious in drawing some pictures is that
gate-hooking (the cause of my scariest moments over the last 15 years) could
easily be avoided by modifying the procedures. We seem to have equated the
"optical gate" with a finish line without thinking about the possibilities
now that flights are controlled 100% by GPS. For instance, steering turns
with x radius located y miles out. It sounds complicated, but it really
isn't. Task sheet would read something like this:

Start- Cylinder A

Turpoint 1 - Rockville

Turpoint 2 - Sink Hole

Turnpoint 3 - Ridgeville

Finish Point B

Finish Line

No fix within the Finish Point = landout Thus, it puts some real teeth
into knowing the finish direction and makes it a conscious part of any
after-launch task change. Anyway, I hope we can keep disecting the problem
without resorting to name calling - I owe it to the wife and kids.

P3