At 05:30 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Andy Blackburn wrote:
My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be
so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder
encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach
the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide.
The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone
got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder
for me.

Never mind, I keep forgetting to just stay out of this.
I'd have a bit
more respect for your position if y'all would quit
trying to convince
people its more dangerous to finish at 500 feet than
at 50, but it
really doesn't matter. *I* have margin for error at
500 feet, I have
none at 50 or 100, tis adequate reason for me, clearly
it isn't enough
for you, 'nuf said.

I do wish we could talk about this without the ad hominem
commentary.

I never said the you have more energy at 50 feet than
500'/1sm. I believe I pointed out long ago that 500'
and 1sm at 60kts is the equivalent in energy of 50'
over the airport and 100 kts for most modern sailplanes
or +/-350' over the airport at best glide. It's a difference
in energy to be sure. Everyone stipulated to that point
long ago.

The argument is about the more subtle points regarding
decision making, heads-down piloting and traffic management.
The cylindre proponents seem to deny ANY issues with
the cyliner and come back to altitude as the ONLY safety
factor on final glides and therefore conclude that
the cylinder must be HANDS DOWN TOTALLY SAFE. Some
of us would like to point out that it is more complex
than that.

I have never stated that the cylinder is less safe
than the gate - rather that the biggest threat to safety
is simplistic arguments that lead to flat assertions.

9B