On 8/13/2011 5:59 PM, Andy wrote:
On Aug 6, 11:23 am, Scott
wrote:

I love this sport very much, and I would sure hate to see more
accidents cause the participation rate to dwindle down even more. Why
don't we overhaul our turnpoint databases to improve safety???

There is no requirement for a turnpoint to be landable. There is no
requirement for a turnpoint database to include any landable sites.
It would be nice, however, if contest organizers provided a separate
landables database, particularly when holding a contest at a site
where no one except locals knows where the landables are.

It seems likely to me that Scott meant "waypoints" when he said
"turnpoints", and was promoting landable waypoints be included in the
waypoint database, not that all turnpoints actually be landable.
"Waypoint" and "turnpoint" are often used interchangeably, but that's a
real mistake when talking about contests.

The problem with a "landables" database is that it needs to be
maintained. A strip that was landable 5 years ago may be full of
motor homes and off road vehicles on the day you need it.

Local knowledge is a huge advantage at any contest site and
particularly at a new site.

I'll quibble with this: local knowledge is usually much less valuable at
flat land sites than in mountain sites or ridge sites.

Nothing is going to change that.

In the past, something did change that in a remarkable way: GPS
receivers. They made navigating so easy, it was no longer a factor in
contest flying.

That kind of change is still possible. Google Earth lets you "fly" a
contest area; Michael Reid's use of Google maps to document landing
areas and lift sources could substantially reduce the effect of local
knowledge, but not many sites have been documented. Condor and other
simulators have the potential to train pilots to fly well at a new site,
and I think that will be SOP for contest pilots in less than 5 years.

Am I right, Frank?

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)