First of all I would like to congratulate Sean for being able to pick the most controversial subjects to discuss on RAS. Just about every thread Sean starts or joins turns into a weeks long exchange that explores every possible nuance to the point of ad nauseam. If newcomers to the sport could be encouraged to the same degree we would see a boom in soaring participation.

But I digress my main observation is that twenty years ago before GPS to receive a good finish one had to arrive within the airfield boundaries with flying speed and it was necessary to complete a touchdown, roll out and stop without catastrophic incident. If you landed before the fence or executed an arrival rather than a landing, points for a successful finish were not awarded. The difference now is we are required to arrive above and within the horizontal boundaries of the top of an invisible cylinder. The cylinder itself is no different than a line of trees on the airfield boundary, enter it from anywhere other than above and you did not make the finish. Except of course we have graduated penalties, which change the whole safety objective, the main reason for going to a finish cylinder. Imagine if we had the same graduated penalties in the finish line scenario:
· hit the fence post but cause only superficial damage 20 points
· stall and groundloop just inside the airfield boundary, breaking off the tail boom 500 points
· but come to rest past the runway threshold 100 points
Well I hope you get the picture. Logically, if you don't complete the mission the way it is intended you don't deserve the points.

If safety is not the reason for adopting a finish cylinder then we might as well go back to the old finish line at least it was fun and it was simple to determine a valid finish. Both methods open the possibility to pull ups and thermalling low and close to the airport. Is this the behaviour we are trying to mitigate? Thermalling low down or aggressive pull ups can occur anywhere on task, this behaviour is not governed by proximity to the finish. However funnelling the fleet into a 1 mile radius cylinder at 500 ft may concentrate traffic to the point this behaviour can be detrimental to more than the individual performing these manoeuvres. We use a 5 mile cylinder for the start to provide separation should we not do the same at the finish. It could be argued that there is greater concentration at the start than the finish, but gaggling ensures a mass finish is not unusual. Finishing the race further out would necessitate a higher cylinder to allow the glider to cover the distance to the airport and extra height is needed to perform a circuit. The desired circuit arrival height can be used to determine the height at which the race ends at the circle boundary. Spectator value disappeared along with the finish line but if one is bent on thrilling the onlookers there is plenty more time and room to execute the move using the remote finish.

Contest site management already has the leeway to set a finish height. We have testimony that unless the finish is set high enough lower performance gliders entering the finish cylinder at the optimum height may encounter difficulty completing a satisfactory circuit and landing. Again if safety is the motivation then maybe we need to allow contest management the ability to set realistic safety parameters to suit the contest they are running. In a large contest at a restricted site a wider finish ring with height set high enough to ensure an orderly circuit for the given site and different finish heights to suit each class might alleviate safety concerns and given the more generous margins obviate the need for penalty points and the arguments they create. In short flexible finish height and an elastic cylinder radius may be the answer but despite all the risks I still prefer the old fashioned flying finish the most.

Andy Gough