500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll

(Tom Seim) wrote in message news

You are right, of course, I should have used the term "optimized"
instead of "best". It definitely doesn't make sense to continue
climbing so you can glide in at redline speed (unless you have a 15-20
kt thermal!).

Currently (and especially where I usually race, where the last 10
miles are totally unlandable), I try for a MC (3, 4, whatever based on
last climb) plus at least 500', so that I have a pad over the bad
stretch. If I get low on glide, I can slow down, but when I get down
to a MC 2 with no pad, I know I have to find something to bump or it's
going to be a real low energy finish. I won't try it at less than MC
2, not worth it. So what usually happens is that as the glide
progresses I tend to get higher on the glide as I get close, in order
to keep a good pad for the last 10 miles, then by 5 miles or so can
accelerate back to speed (redline if possible) to make up some of the
lost "ideal" speed. As a result, I'm usually at about 200 ft and fast
at 1 mile (from the airport). I checked this last Sunday, on a day
when getting home was tricky - and the rest of the guys I fly with do
about the same thing.

So what does the 500' rule add, safety wise? If someone who is racing
doesn't understand what is going on here, they need more training
(Whoa, there is a subject for discussion - minimum demonstrated skills
and knowledge for racing!), not rules that complicate an already busy
part of the flight.

In my experience, positive reinforcement works, negative doesn't. If
I finish and don't land our, I get points. I want to make decisions
that get me home, fast, in the running, not take risks of landing our
or finishing slow or breaking something. A rule that says "Don't do
this or else" is not nearly as effective.

Anyway - everybody fill our the SRA poll and let's see what happens.

Kirk
66

Cliff Hilty wrote:

Youve hit on something that I have been thinking about
for several years now and don't see the relavence of
penalizing the landout so extremely. It seems to me
that if you base the landout on a percentage of the
slowest finishers score that you will significantly
reduce the 'Have to make it home to score' and will
allow a better decision making process earlier in the
flight. I Suggested this in the opinion section of
the recent poll that started this thread. I suggest
that you take the slowest finishers score and award
points to the landouts by a percentage of course length
acheieved. IE slowest finisher acheives 800 points
and flew 100 miles. Landout guy, flys 90% of slowest
finisher distance and lands at the last available airfeild
before unlandable terrain. He woud recieve 720 points.
Allowing him not to lose the contest on the first day
with a landout and giving him incentive not to risk
the alternative of a bad landing site. Ther are already
penalties for landing out such as long retrieves disassembly
and reassembly, less sleep ect. Obviously it can be
massaged for better numbers and maybe more penalty
for longer time on course ect ect. What do you all
think? I think this has real possibilities. At least
better ones than imposing higher finishes, 15 min add
rules, ect ect.


Did you see the movie "A Beautiful Mind" (Oscar winner for Best Picture
of 2001)? There's a wonderful scene in which mathematician John Nash
introduces the concept of the "Nash equilibrium" to his fellow grad
students, using the example of how their collective individual
tendencies to go for the prettiest girl in the bar will inevitably
result in none of them getting laid that night.

Here's the result I get when I apply the Nash equilibrium principle to
your scoring scheme: one pilot gets 1000 points and the rest each get
999 points. Each pilot's individual tendency to go for the highest score
that he can get will inevitably result in one pilot finishing and all
other pilots deliberately landing just short of the finish line.

To most easily see why this is so, imagine an Assigned Task with all the
pilots starting together in a big furball. Pilot A is the first, and
therefore the fastest, finisher and gets 1000 points. As pilot B
approaches the finish, he calculates that his speed will be 95% of the
winner's speed, earning 950 points. Ah, but if there is only one
finisher, the fastest finisher is also the slowest finisher. In that
case, pilot B would get 999 points if he landed just short of the finish
line, so that is what he does.

If pilot C comes along and finishes with 90% of the winner's speed,
pilot B would be bumped down to 899 points, so pilot B would have done
better to finish for 950 points, right? True, but that assumes that
pilot C would screw himself by finishing for 900 points when he too
could have landed short for 999 points. And so on, down the list.

The reason we have scoring systems with a high "landout penalty" is
precisely to eliminate these situations in which a pilot might get fewer
points for finishing than he would get for deliberately landing short of
the finish line.

Gary Ittner P7
"Have glider, will race"

Gary, I disagree with your scenaro. there are many
ways to massage this to make it happen not the least
of which would base the landout guy score on time as
well as distance ie if he was faster than the slowest
finisher he would still score less than him. Therefore,
his incentive would be to finish not to landout. You
also assume that there will be a place to land right
off the airport. If the last place to land is 20 miles
away on a 200 mile task it is only 90% or 900 points
in your scenaro. I don't know of any of the racing
pilots I fly with that will settle for that! Assume
another scenaro where the day dies after just one finisher
and all of the pilots are at the last air field and
land there in order thaey all would not score the same
it would or could be based on time around the course
to that point and still less than the finisher. In
this scenaro you could do away with devauleing a day
as well. Anyway its good to have these discussions.
Some changes can be good, some can be bad and the more
we talk about it the better options we can come up
with.

Cliff Hilty Ventus B


At 14:18 27 September 2003, Gary Ittner wrote:

Did you see the movie 'A Beautiful Mind' (Oscar winner
for Best Picture
of 2001)? There's a wonderful scene in which mathematician
John Nash
introduces the concept of the 'Nash equilibrium' to
his fellow grad
students, using the example of how their collective
individual
tendencies to go for the prettiest girl in the bar
will inevitably
result in none of them getting laid that night.

Here's the result I get when I apply the Nash equilibrium
principle to
your scoring scheme: one pilot gets 1000 points and
the rest each get
999 points. Each pilot's individual tendency to go
for the highest score
that he can get will inevitably result in one pilot
finishing and all
other pilots deliberately landing just short of the
finish line.

To most easily see why this is so, imagine an Assigned
Task with all the
pilots starting together in a big furball. Pilot A
is the first, and
therefore the fastest, finisher and gets 1000 points.
As pilot B
approaches the finish, he calculates that his speed
will be 95% of the
winner's speed, earning 950 points. Ah, but if there
is only one
finisher, the fastest finisher is also the slowest
finisher. In that
case, pilot B would get 999 points if he landed just
short of the finish
line, so that is what he does.

If pilot C comes along and finishes with 90% of the
winner's speed,
pilot B would be bumped down to 899 points, so pilot
B would have done
better to finish for 950 points, right? True, but that
assumes that
pilot C would screw himself by finishing for 900 points
when he too
could have landed short for 999 points. And so on,
down the list.

The reason we have scoring systems with a high 'landout
penalty' is
precisely to eliminate these situations in which a
pilot might get fewer
points for finishing than he would get for deliberately
landing short of
the finish line.

Gary Ittner P7
'Have glider, will race'

Pure undiluted common sense.

John Galloway


At 22:06 29 September 2003, Chip Bearden wrote:
I agree with Dale (below). I was waiting for someone
to voice the
'hey, it's fun' rationale for traditional high-speed
finishes and it's
amazing that it took nearly 50 postings:

1. On a purely emotional level, I miss (and I'm sure
the spectators
do too) the 50 foot speed pass finish line.

Dale Kramer
K1

I also agree with Kirk Stant that part of the appeal
(and challenge)
of soaring is that it allows us to incur whatever level
of risk we
intelligently elect. 'Adrenaline junky' is a harsh
term but I'll be
honest in admitting that the part of the 'thrill' (another
harsh term
used in this context) of soaring is the element of
risk and how we as
pilots manage it.

There was a provocative article in (I believe) Gliding
Kiwi about ten
years ago that said, in effect, let's quit trying to
convince everyone
that soaring is 100% safe. It's not, and therein lies
some of the
appeal. Certainly competition soaring involves an element
of that.

Those who know me also know that, at age 52 with a
wife and 9-year-old
twin daughters, and with a father and a best friend
who were both
killed in soaring accidents, I certainly don't have
a death wish. Far
from it. I WANT to be as safe a pilot as I can be.
But I also want to
enjoy this sport the way I always have, and contest
finishes still
have the same appeal they did when I first starting
flying contests in
1968.

As for the less emotional arguments for/against, they've
been made.
The most persuasive, to me, is that whatever penalty
is imposed for
busting the floor of the finish donut will, perversely,
act as an
incentive to thermal at low altitudes trying to 'save'
a flight, even
a flight that, ironically, could be concluded quite
safely be simply
gliding to the finish line sedately from one or two
miles out and 499
feet. Yeah, it might make some pilots or flights 'safer'
but I can see
how it will make certain other situations 'less safe.'
A lot depends
on what the meaning of the word 'safe' is.

Based on my experience with the donut, I also agree
with Dale that you
tend to spend more time heads down to make sure you
don't bust the
hard deck at the last minute. After all, you can't
actually SEE it,
unlike the traditional finish line. My biggest fear
is learning after
the flight that my flight recorder shows I missed the
donut by, say,
20 feet even though my altimeter indicated I was 50
feet above when
the GPS said 1.0 mile. Given the number of turnpoints
that pilots have
missed by a few meters, do we really need another way
of screwing up a
flight?

I'm from the old school. I check out fields under the
glide path from
likely finish directions BEFORE final glide. I keep
500 feet dialed in
as a final glide margin and often take more than that.
And when I'm
not sure I can make it back safely, I land. I may make
that decision
10 miles out at 2000 feet (or even higher) or one mile
out at 200 feet
depending on the fields, the weather, etc.

But it's MY decision, not someone writing rules that
attempt to level
the playing field for pilots with vastly different
amounts of skill
and experience. No matter how noble the rationale,
that's a
troublesome way of thinking to me, even in the name
of 'safety.'

The low finish isn't something an inexperienced pilot
should try
without proper preparation. And it isn't something
anyone should try
under improper conditions. But, as for many other things
we do in
sailplanes that the uninitiated think are dangerous,
the cure for this
'problem' seems to be better training, better qualification
of
contestants, and better judgment rather than blanket
prohibitions. The
increasingly popular regional competition clinics are
great places to
address this.

Chip Bearden

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
...
Perhaps, but, am I really the only one who has experienced a near miss
after
finishing an PST/MAT using a GPS finish gate with no low altitude limit?

I'm not sure what your point is Marc but there is no such thing as "a GPS
finish gate with no low altitude limit". The minimum is 50'.

If you are meaning that finishers are coming from all directions then I
agree that it can be a problem. That is why experienced CD's call for
either a steering turnpoint as the last one or for folks to finish from a
single direction. In my experience the latter still can provide some
problems so I prefer the steering turnpoint.

If you are meaning that you nearly didn't make it home then I honestly feel
that it is a pure miscalculation on the pilots part. Every single flight
that we take we have to decide how much margin to put in re making it back.
That is totally up to you as it should be. But please don't blame me if you
chose to begin a marginal final glide and don't quite get there or barely
make it. I am a conservative racing pilot and the only time that I can
remember barely making it back (rolling finish) is when I had 30 other
gliders, half lower than me and in front, at the 1998 Uvalde Std Nats last
day. Even with that I was puckered and haven't done it since.

And I think that Chip has summarized things in the best way possible from my
viewpoint. Thanks Chip!

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

John Cochrane wrote:

I've been following all these responses with interest, but I feel we
have lost some of the forest in looking at the leaves on the trees.

The point where a glider race ends is arbitrary. We can end the race
-- calculate speed and give speed points -- for any landing within a 5
mile circle of the home airport. We can end the race as we do now, at
the airport fence. We can end the race 500 feet up. It's the same for
everybody. Where we end the race has no effect at all on the
competitive, soaring aspect. Adjust your arrival margin accordingly.

Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?

John Cochrane

Arbitrary, yes. BUT with implications.

I have heard the points about low thermalling with finishing traffic
close overhead, and
find I'm coming to this conclusion:

The most likely way to have thing's turn out OK at the end of the day
(defined as everybody happy, with gliders in one piece and scored)
is to stick with the current finish, along with whatever low-flying-over
the airport
local rule (with penalty) is necessary.

That way, people can non arbitrarily add their safety margin (or not) and
accept
their non ideal finish while enjoying a beer without worrying if they're
10 feet under
the finish gate because of the pressure changing and not wanting to keep
their eyes
in the cockpit as the digits on the GPS tick down (horizontal
AND vertical now!)

Chris (a +1000ft guy out here in the West USA)

"Kilo Charlie" wrote...
If you are meaning that finishers are coming from all directions then I
agree that it can be a problem. That is why experienced CD's call for
either a steering turnpoint as the last one or for folks to finish from a
single direction. In my experience the latter still can provide some
problems so I prefer the steering turnpoint.

Yes, that's what I mean. The contests I've experienced of late, where the low
pass lovers convince the CD to use a finish gate, call for finishing from a
single direction, but never have a steering turnpoint. My closest near-miss
resulted from a high finish (I like having a cushion, I haven't finished a
contest below 500 feet AGL in 10 years) and a normal pattern, then having
someone make a redline pass less than 100 feet below me just before my base to
final turn. He made the 4 mile call without specifying a direction, and never
saw me. Now, when I'm in the pattern, whether at a contest, or not, I'm
watching the runway, the windsock, etc., not for adrenaline junkies on the deck.

Personally, I don't like steering turns, because they just move the problem out
a few miles, and at many sites can turn a comfortable final glide into a
marginal situation. My attitude is I'm willing to do MATs or put up with a
finish gate, but not both in the same task.

Marc

I would only add that as far as I'm concerned, most pilots will be finishing
at a fairly specific point with a finish gate from the same direction. The
gate is only one kilometer wide vs. a cylinder which allows pilots to finish
legally from any direction (360 degrees) and angle. Especially in a
situation where folks are finishing from all directions with or without a
500' rule, it is dangerous and should not be allowed.

Give me a situation and I can guarantee that I can come up with more than
one way to make it fail wrt safety. This thread has many great examples of
that. I am not trying to belittle your testimony of the finish you
described but there is not ever going to be a totally safe finish method or
sport.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

"Kilo Charlie" wrote...
I would only add that as far as I'm concerned, most pilots will be finishing
at a fairly specific point with a finish gate from the same direction. The
gate is only one kilometer wide vs. a cylinder which allows pilots to finish
legally from any direction (360 degrees) and angle. Especially in a
situation where folks are finishing from all directions with or without a
500' rule, it is dangerous and should not be allowed.

Casey, have you ever actually flown a contest that used a finish cylinder? If
they're coming from all directions, they're spread out over the circumference of
the cylinder, 6+ miles for a 1 mile cylinder, or 12+ miles for a 2 mile
cylinder. The majority of us (you know, the non-adrenalin junkies) make an easy
pull up upon crossing into the cylinder, and are high, slow, and looking by the
time we're going to have conflicts with gliders coming from other directions.
It's significantly more relaxed and safer than trying to hook a gate while
gliders are coming every which way, plus you don't have conflicts with gliders
redlining it at 200 feet while you're trying to land.

Marc

Well put Chip.

9B

At 22:06 29 September 2003, Chip Bearden wrote:
I agree with Dale (below). I was waiting for someone
to voice the
'hey, it's fun' rationale for traditional high-speed
finishes and it's
amazing that it took nearly 50 postings:

1. On a purely emotional level, I miss (and I'm sure
the spectators
do too) the 50 foot speed pass finish line.

Dale Kramer
K1

I also agree with Kirk Stant that part of the appeal
(and challenge)
of soaring is that it allows us to incur whatever level
of risk we
intelligently elect. 'Adrenaline junky' is a harsh
term but I'll be
honest in admitting that the part of the 'thrill' (another
harsh term
used in this context) of soaring is the element of
risk and how we as
pilots manage it.

There was a provocative article in (I believe) Gliding
Kiwi about ten
years ago that said, in effect, let's quit trying to
convince everyone
that soaring is 100% safe. It's not, and therein lies
some of the
appeal. Certainly competition soaring involves an element
of that.

Those who know me also know that, at age 52 with a
wife and 9-year-old
twin daughters, and with a father and a best friend
who were both
killed in soaring accidents, I certainly don't have
a death wish. Far
from it. I WANT to be as safe a pilot as I can be.
But I also want to
enjoy this sport the way I always have, and contest
finishes still
have the same appeal they did when I first starting
flying contests in
1968.

As for the less emotional arguments for/against, they've
been made.
The most persuasive, to me, is that whatever penalty
is imposed for
busting the floor of the finish donut will, perversely,
act as an
incentive to thermal at low altitudes trying to 'save'
a flight, even
a flight that, ironically, could be concluded quite
safely be simply
gliding to the finish line sedately from one or two
miles out and 499
feet. Yeah, it might make some pilots or flights 'safer'
but I can see
how it will make certain other situations 'less safe.'
A lot depends
on what the meaning of the word 'safe' is.

Based on my experience with the donut, I also agree
with Dale that you
tend to spend more time heads down to make sure you
don't bust the
hard deck at the last minute. After all, you can't
actually SEE it,
unlike the traditional finish line. My biggest fear
is learning after
the flight that my flight recorder shows I missed the
donut by, say,
20 feet even though my altimeter indicated I was 50
feet above when
the GPS said 1.0 mile. Given the number of turnpoints
that pilots have
missed by a few meters, do we really need another way
of screwing up a
flight?

I'm from the old school. I check out fields under the
glide path from
likely finish directions BEFORE final glide. I keep
500 feet dialed in
as a final glide margin and often take more than that.
And when I'm
not sure I can make it back safely, I land. I may make
that decision
10 miles out at 2000 feet (or even higher) or one mile
out at 200 feet
depending on the fields, the weather, etc.

But it's MY decision, not someone writing rules that
attempt to level
the playing field for pilots with vastly different
amounts of skill
and experience. No matter how noble the rationale,
that's a
troublesome way of thinking to me, even in the name
of 'safety.'

The low finish isn't something an inexperienced pilot
should try
without proper preparation. And it isn't something
anyone should try
under improper conditions. But, as for many other things
we do in
sailplanes that the uninitiated think are dangerous,
the cure for this
'problem' seems to be better training, better qualification
of
contestants, and better judgment rather than blanket
prohibitions. The
increasingly popular regional competition clinics are
great places to
address this.

Chip Bearden