JJ, I'm thinking back. Half a dozen sanctioned contests? We use the
cylinder at M-ASA for our Club tasks as well. You miss my point
though... It's not condemnation of the finish cylinder as a concept.
Whatever the rules, I'll follow them and use them to my best advantage.
It's an assessment of the forethought that has been applied to its
implementation. Many of the concerns you aptly apply to the finish line
can be transferred to the finish cylinder. While it answers some
concerns, it ignores others and raises still more. In my opinion, the
finish gate is most dangerous when sailplanes of different performances
and speed ranges are finishing together. This is why the cylinder is an
appropriate solution for the sports class. Under such circumstances,
there can be significant differences in the patterns pilots must fly
after the finish. And the cylinder raises greatest concerns during TATs
and ASTs, especially in weak or blue conditions, when gaggling is most
likely.

I've talked about the heads down aspect of the cylinder, the de facto
reduction of finish line width during ASTs, the reduced separation of
high and low speed traffic and the variables we're likely to encounter
once we enter the cylinder and proceed to the IP.

I keep asking for some regulation at the cylinder that will make it
easier for me to anticipate likely hazards. And the constant response
is density. I've flown the 1-mile "turn cylinder" for several seasons
now, and I've come to the conclusion that it does little to alleviate
congestion. There is some improvement under certain conditions, but by
and large there's typcally only one "best" way to round the turnpoint
at any given moment, and that's where sailplanes operate.

It comes down to this: I understand the finish gate. I know its hazards
and can anticipate them. The cylinder presents unaddressed variables.
And unlike some pilots, I prefer the advantages of going into a
hazardous environment with as much knowledge as I can. Right now I am
admitting my ignorance of how best to manage the cylinder. And I'm not
taking much confidence in the recommendations of those who purport to
understand its dynamics.

Racing is not inherently safe. And experience leaves me dubious about
rules changes that are predicated on improving the inherent safety of
any aspect of the sport. The density argument rings untrue. There is
clearly some value in elimination of head on traffic, but this can be
addressed in other ways as well, many of which have been offered but
not thoroughly explored because the cylinder is assumed to trump them
all.

You have to give me some credit here. I'm not addressing this as a
blunt-skull only. Sports Class... use the cylinder. MAT... the cylinder
might be appropriate... for the CD and his advisors to decide. Single
class of experienced pilots flying AST or TAT (Nationals), the line
serves very well. Perhaps even better. In either case, the safety of
cylinder versus line is determined solely by the knowledge and
practices of its users. I'd like to be knowledgable in both. If nothing
else, you've turned me pragmatist, JJ. The line serves me fine, but I
know I'll be presented with the cylinder more and more. So let's get on
with the business of putting some regulation on it.

wrote:
OC, You never did answer my question, "How many contests have you
flown
using the finish cylinder?"
Your skepticism leads me to believe you havent flown that many. I
know
you flew it at Montague, anywhere else? How about giving it a fair
try
before condeming it?
JJ