On Aug 8, 11:47*am, Buba Smith wrote:

there was nothing safe about the tasks assigned
over unsafe terrain at your " Safest mountain site " or cramming
nearly 60 gliders and 5 towplanes on the same mile and a half stretch
of ridge at the same altitude .

"Buba" -

You are ignoring the facts (again). Launches were staggered and
contest classes were given different start-cylinder radii (up to 10
miles!!) so that they could spread out and avoid each other. 60
gliders were NOT forced into the same "half-mile" stretch of ridge at
all. During launches there were multiple gaggles up and down the
ridge from Smithfield Canyon to Logan Canyon, on the ridge and out in
front of it. And as people got above the ridge they spread out even
more. Every time I hit 9000' I dove for the ridge and ran from just
south of Sugar Creek to Naomi while waiting for the gate to open, and
that got me well away from the gaggles. Anyone could have done this
same thing if they wanted to (and several did).

As far as "unsafe" terrain... You claim to be a mountain-flyer.
ANYONE who has flown in the mountains has flown over lots of
unlandable terrain. Its called "the mountains" (themselves)! UNSAFE
terrain is a totally different animal. What makes terrain unsafe is
not just the slope, or the rocks, or the vegetation. The pilot's
attitude, planning, and judgement skills are critical components. The
CD and task-setters do NOT force the pilot to fly over specific
terrain. It is up to the pilots to choose their route. _Legally_,
pilots are responsible for the safety of their own flight (FAR 91.3).
Picking a route on a contest task is about more than just finding the
"green air". Terrain & safety should factor into the decision-making
process. During the Regionals, I personally was never more than 10
miles from a landable field, and when I was that far away from one I
was usually quite high - or I was working reliable lift (or both).
And lest anyone think that my choices somehow compromised my
competitiveness: I finished 4th overall out of 16 entrants in my
class, and were it not for a low finish one day I would have taken
2nd. I don't want to point at myself too much as an example of good
judgement (I make my fair share of bad decisions and goofs) - but I
want to illustrate that you can be fast *and* still be reasonably
safe.

Look, I'm a 300-hour glider pilot with less than 5 full seasons under
my belt. Logan 2011 was my 5th SSA contest ever. If the place was
that bad/scary/dangerous, how come I had no serious problems and was
able to make it around the (Regionals) task every day except for the
first (when massive thunderstorms downed almost the entire fleet)? I
wasn't just lucky: I got low in places, and on the first day I landed
out... Yet I didn't break my glider and I was never in danger of
putting it down in a nasty area because I planned ahead while I was
still high enough to take action. That's just part of mountain-
flying!

I HATE the fact that a group of 4 or 5 guys have taken it upon
themselves to tar and feather the Logan site, the contest management,
and (specifically) Tim. These are good people, good pilots, and they
had good intentions. There was no malicious action or devious
plotting. They freely shared their local information and repeatedly
warned pilots about trouble areas or ways to cross difficult terrain.
What more could they have done? They can't fly the damn glider for
someone else, or force them to make good decisions! Case in point:
One of the broken gliders flew 6+ miles into rising terrain while
losing altitude. The glider came to rest on a rocky slope near 6400'
elevation. If you look at Google Maps (via the OLC trace - its
online) you can see a highway running through a low slot (5500') that
the pilot could have used to turn back North and escape to lower
terrain (5000'). In fact, for those last 6 miles the contestant was
flying parallel the "escape route", just 1 mile to the east of it. I
am not saying any of this to be harsh on the pilot; I'm making the
point that this broken glider has NOTHING to do with the task that was
called or the contest staff, or even the site! When someone drives a
boat into a dock do we blame the dock? When a car runs off the road
and hits a house, to we blame the house or the bend in the road?

Lest you all think I'm being a Pollyanna, I will say that there are
some things about the contest I that I think could have been improved:
The tasks were based upon weather calls that were not always correct.
In defense of the contest staff we're also talking about a week in
which MOST of the USA was experiencing bizarre weather - including 119
degrees in Minnesota! When I was in Logan in 2010, weather was much
stronger and the tasks that were called would have been no problem if
the weather was just a touch better most days. Still, some different
weather forecast assumptions and a later grid-time would have been
appreciated, once we all caught on to the weather patterns that were
prevalent during the first week. I understand the reluctance to move
the grid-time later; conventional wisdom says its worse to miss an
early day or a chance for a big task - and before the contest people
were having success launching early... But at the same time there was
a cumulative toll being taken on pilots & crews (and staff) sitting
out in the sun day after day. I also agree that some (not all) of the
backup tasks were not well-thought-out. Sometimes reducing the
minimum time and using large turn radii can work; but not always. And
I think that in the future ANY contest staff should think hard about
trying to put on a Regionals & a Nats at the same time. I flew the
Regionals and would have hated not being able to compete; but I also
think that there were many people who showed up for the Regionals
simply because a Nationals was being held and they wanted to fly at
the same site. Some of them were not prepared for hard racing or for
mountain-flying, and the wide spread in performance and skill between
the top and bottom of the 60 entrants made life harder for the Staff
and some of the contestants. I think the staff did the best job that
they could, but I also think that a single contest would have allowed
more focus and reduced some of the complaints and problems (Note that
I don't think it would have prevented any of the broken aircraft or
altered the weather problems). And again - the passing of Charlie
"Lite" did not help matters. Whether or not you personally like the
contest staff members, you have to give them credit for working hard
to still put on a contest just a handful weeks after his passing.

And for the last time: This was not a Safari, Encampment, Fun-Fly, or
XC-camp. It was a _contest_. Primarily, it was a NATIONAL
CHAMPIONSHIP. Its *supposed* to be tough and challenging and require
good judgement and tough decisions and calculated risks. It was not
billed as a contest for beginners. It was not intended to be a place
where people come to fly their first contest. Some people have
complained about Logan in the context of getting "Joe Glider Pilot" to
come fly contests... But "Joe" was not the target audience! If you
want to get "Joe" out, do what we do in WA: Hold a mock-contest over a
3-day weekend, with mentors and seminars and short simple tasks in a
place with strong lift and non-threatening terrain. Don't dumb-down
National Championships or restrict which sites are considered for
major events, based on the misguided assumption that somehow you'll
increase participation by doing so.

And to anyone who's actually read this Novella all the way through:
Thanks! :-)

--Noel