wrote:
The finish line is a magnifying glass. The sins committed there are
repeated throughout the soaring day. Only difference is, everyone sees
and comments on them. The same and new errors will be made in the
finish cylinder, but out of sight of the peanut gallery. This isn't
safer; it just seems safer - a three-monkeys approach to safety. (And
yes, while you have more altitude under you, you've also increased the
likelihood and severity of collision.)

There are differences, I like having altitude under me, I like having
the time to go through my checklist, then make a proper pattern after
the finish. It is my belief that the likelihood of collision is greater
with a finish gate, particularly when people are having to "hook" the gate.

In a previous post, I pointed out how little it costs in points to opt
out of a 50-foot finish. Eight points max.

I don't care enough about winning to worry about a few points here and
there, so yes, I almost always go through finish gates at 500 to 1000
feet. Of course, I've finished second in two regionals in the past 3
years, by 1 and 35 points (but both used cylinders).

On the other hand, the
cylinder represents some known problems (head-down piloting) and
unknown problems (traffic separation at the cylinder wall and
procedures after the clock stops).

This will sound a bit snarky, but perhaps you need to adjust/practice
your finish cylinder technique. I don't find any more need to fly head
down than I do with a gate. Every contest that I've flown centered the
cylinder on an easily visible landmark. I set my glide software to
arrive one mile out at the desired altitude (I personally set it to
arrive at 500 feet above the floor), fly straight at the landmark, and
glance at the computer once in a while to make sure I'm still above
glide slope. My software beeps when I cross the cylinder, doesn't yours?

Traffic issues at the cylinder wall are, in my mind, not much different
than a gate, except there is a lot more time to shift gears and sequence
for landing.

Just because something "seems" safer, doesn't mean it is. And while we
blunt skulls may seem unreasonable in our commitment to the status quo,
some of us would rather deal with the risks we understand than journey
off into the unknown.

You are taking a legacy finishing procedure, clearly optimal for the
optical timing techniques used in the past, and trying to force it into
the GPS age. Sometimes the status quo needs to be shaken up a bit.
And, there are now quite a few of us new guys around who have little
experience with finish gates, and don't much like them.

I and others have pointed out, in this and other threads, some of those
variables. I've seen mixed results in how these questions have been
addressed. One thing is certain... any finish is a high-density,
high-risk environment, and my own experience is that I spend far too
much of my time looking at instruments while approaching the cylinder
for my own comfort (and for yours). When I call four miles, I want my
head out of the cockpit 99% percent of the time. This simply isn't
realistic with the cylinder. We need to fully understand where the
benefit of lower density outweighs the effects of greater pilot
distraction. A blue day AST or TAT raises the potential density of the
finish, and thus the importance of heads up piloting.

My answer to this is "bull". I'm not distracted and I don't have my
head down. I thought it important to work out a finish strategy that
gives me maximum heads-up time. I've even gone so far as to modify my
glide software to provide audio indication that my final glide is
trending above/below the desired slope. Perhaps you should insist that
your software vendor do the same.

I could be converted. But it's clear the cylinder hasn't been
adequately vetted.

The finish gate was vetted for use in optically timed environments. We
no longer do that.

There's too large a penalty for rolling finishes,

I agree, that needs to be worked on.

which means pilots will be trying all sorts of tricks to clip the
bottom, flying at low speeds into high-speed, high-density traffic.

I think we can agree that stupid pilots will do stupid things,
independent of the rules.

And
there's no standardization for pattern entry based on energy after
entering the cylinder.

Most of us have years of experience trying to figure out how to land
with other aircraft milling around in the vicinity. We use a 2 mile
1000 foot cylinder at Minden, precisely because finishing gliders must
integrate with non-contest traffic, including fire bombers, jets, and
student glider pilots. We have not had a single problem with this.

For instance, at the Std Class Nats in Montague I didn't begin dumping
water until after I pierced the finish cylinder. After finishing, I
would pull up to 800 feet agl, open the dumps, and wander around the
vicinity of the IP until I reached pattern altitude. After all, why
should I take the performance penalty of dumping water if I have
several minutes after the finish to lighten the glider before landing?
Multiply this by 10, introduce variables in speed, altitude, wing
loading, and pattern planning, and the IP becomes an increasingly
dangerous environment.

This is silly. I pull the dump handle when I make my four mile call,
using a gate or cylinder. One experience landing with partially dumped
water was enough to convince me that I needed to be consistent about this.

Where does this leave the guy who has difficulty judging whether he
ought to light the burners or break off for a rolling finish? Or a
pilot who cannot execute a brief 2-g pull and 180 degree turn to final?
How will they deal with inserting themselves into a much more dynamic
pattern with several other gliders, with lots of opportunity to raise
the level of confusion?

The guy will learn the same way a lot of us did, by trial and error,
plus admonishments and suggestions from the more experienced. As for
the brief 2-G pull and 180 degree turn, it is no problem when it works,
it is only a problem when there are distractions or impairments in play.
At 500 feet, I can screw up, and still have a decent chance of
recovering in time to land in one piece. At 100 feet, I'm likely to do
the lawn dart act.

Safety is my primary concern. Which is to say, if I believed the
cylinder was inherently safer, I'd be writing in equal volume in favor.
But it's clearly not the cure-all some propose. At best, not yet.

We can agree to disagree on this. Frankly, I think you finish gate
advocates have already lost the argument, you just don't know it yet...