Having thought about all the different final glide scenarios a lot and having made at least half a dozen proposals to the RC over the past four years, I can say with some confidence that a simple calculation of how many points you give up sticking with a slow climb and fixing that to an arrival height penalty gradient only works in a world where pilots have perfect information about what lies ahead on final glide.

While pilots may not be explicitly aware of this, the decision to take a sub-par climb at X miles from home is implicitly a probabilisitic calculation.. Mathematically, you have to consider the pilot estimation of the probability of finding a better climb than the current sub-par one somewhere between their current position and home. If it is late in the day and you re 50 miles from home at 5000' AGL climbing an 1.5 knots what probability do you assign to the outcome that this is the last thermal of the day versus the outcome that you'll find a better climb somewhere in the next 35-40 miles. This is a pretty common scenario. The penalty gradient (pts/ft) is the value that arbitrates between choosing one path or the other. A higher penalty gradient shifts the decision more toward staying with the slow climb rather than rolling the dice. There are at least half a dozen other cantgories of final glide scenarios with their own unique decision logic, this is just one of them.

I'm inclined to agree that "get-home-itis" will likely dominate on final glides gone bad in the last few miles or so. Given all that, a flat penalty gradient of somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 point per foot would be a simpler option for a 1000' gate. Pilots seem not to like the simpler option because 100 points for 100' low seems too harsh - hence the two-tier gradient. It doesn't have any cliff like the old rule so it's a continuous curve, but an accelerating one. Personally, I'd be in favor of upping the penalty gradient from the first foot - it alters the calculation on the one scenario over which pilots have the most decision-making control. But, we make compromises based on feedback and pilots seem to like the "smaller penalties for smaller errors". Okay - two tiers.

Jon is right (as is John) - the only difference between an incomplete task at 400' and an incomplete task at 0' is the pilot's tolerance for personal risk. There are some pilots who feel that the ability to overcome the fear of a catastrophic crash is a "skill" that ought to be measured in glider racing. I'm inclined to agree that it is not likely a participation-building approach. If it's the worm-burner pass that people miss (I do), then there are ways to allow for that. For instance, I've always been fond of the idea of a 1000'/4-mile altitude check prior to a no altitude limit line finish as a way to enforce sufficient finish energy. That also addresses some claims (which I don't agree with) that finishing with extra energy is more hazardous because it gives pilots "too may" options to maneuver rather than needing to land "right NOW". I've seen five glider on base an final with no alternative options at a single runway airport and it wan't pretty.

My 2c.

Andy Blackburn
9B


On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 2:54:46 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:00:28 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
This is simply not true. Crashes are not inevitable. When there is a huge points advantage to clearing the fence by 10 feet and plopping it down for a rolling finish, people will do it. The crash results prove it. The high finishes have essentially cured the longstanding problems. Be clear: the issue is not low high speed finishes. The issue is the possibility, and hence the competitive necessity, to accept Mc 0 + 10 feet final glides, and the consequent last minute 1-2 mile out landings, or last minute low energy maneuvering at the airport. If the rules allow it, and you don't do it, you will lose contests.

BTW, I finished 250 feet low at Uvalde, it largely cost me the contest, and I'm not complaining. Yes it was a safe approach to the airport. But I did not make the task.

John Cochrane

I agree with John. If you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a 1000 ft high finish line to avoid a penalty, by the same logic you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a rolling finish to avoid death. The flying skills required in either case are identical - only the consequences are different. To assert otherwise is completely illogical. In fact, allowing low finishes replaces skill with risk taking as the major competitive advantage in final glides. The idea that "airmanship" or "experience" are the difference is specious: accepting a lot of risk and finding a little luck will put you on the podium ahead of someone whose greater experience informs him that it is not worth the risk. A high finish removes the risk and makes only experience and skill count.

The attitude of many here seems to be that soaring is inherently a risky sport, so don't bother with making it less so. I can tell you that where I fly, the most often mentioned reason among fellow pilots for not flying contests is that it is too risky - competition rewards risk and to be competitive they would need to fly with higher risk of a crash than they would otherwise. For those who want glider competition to just be about who will take the greatest risk, there are many other sports that offer that attraction.