![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Sinclair" wrote in message ... (snip) No, but you bring up a good point. Heaven forbid, should we have an accident, we are producing a complete log of everything we are doing, complete with altitude, time and exact position. The feds won't even have to bring out their tape measure, will they? JJ I agree with your stand on the cylinder vs.gate, JJ, but I don't agree about the logger. Nowhere in the FAR's that I know of does it say that I need to show my logger (or its files) to the FAA. They can check my pilot's license, my identification, my glider paperwork, maybe my parachute packing card, but not my logger. They will still need their tape measure. If they want to inspect the logger post mortem, OK, it probably won't matter much to me if I was legal or not at that point. Actually, my heirs may not want the FAA or the insurance company looking at the logger post mortem, either. I don't know if they would prevail in such a case. Sorry that I am taking this off topic. -Bob Korves |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 01:30 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
9B, Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make a straight in landing. I Disagree. I think you can do pretty much anything necessary to keep the airplane in one piece in an emergency. If you're saying you can fly whatever type of pattern you want at your own discretion, than we probably do disagree. I would consider a straight-in landing an emergency and you'd probably be justified even if you cut off other traffic in the pattern to do it. If you're doing it because you deliberately went for the bottom of the 500' cylinder without enough energy to make a proper pattern then you are probably subject to penalty by the Feds - at least as you've defined the rules. Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500 feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't want to justify to the federalies. You yourself said it's legal to go low at the edge of the cylinder then pull up to 500' to nick the bottom - and that it had specifically been approved by the rules committee. Are you now arguing against this? It seems like you are splitting hairs about low passes. A best L/D finish at 500' and 1 mile will leave you at a bit over 300' over the airport (+/- wherever the pattern is). So what's a low pass for you? 299', 199', 99'? Seems like your definition is tailored to whatever fits the cylinder finish. To be clear, I think gate finishes are legal as long as you don't buzz the FBO, the parking lot, etc. I think arguing that they are illegal also puts cylinder finishes in that category unless you are willing to really torture the facts to argue that something different happens between 50' and 300'. The other thing that hasn't really been discussed is how much any of these rules affect pilot decision-making. I for one set up my final glides at a minimum of Mc=4 plus 1000' irrespective of the type of finish used. Why? Because if I am going to have enough energy for a gate finish, I'll be at 500' with a ton of energy at 1 mile anyway. Some people seem to think that if you add 500' to the finish altitude people will add 500' to their final glides. I seriously doubt this. So I'm not sure if we've bought ourselves anything close to what the advocates claim in terms of additional margin since I also believe a pilot at 800' and three miles is more likely to press on that a pilot at 300' and three miles. Do I think the cylinder is less safe? I'll reserve judgement until we have more information about stall/spin incidents at the edge of the cylinder, but for now I don't think it's worse. Do I think it's better? A glider at 100 knots at 50' has about the same energy as a glider at 300 feet and pattern speed. That's not a big difference. Does it take some of the poetry out of the sport? Yes, I think it does. Not everybody cares about poetry though. The point I've conceded is that the modern 'fly anywhere' tasks make it logistically harder to implement gate finishes, so I think they won't get used much - because of the hassle if for no other reason. 9B |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'm not aware of a cylinder being used for non MAT tasks
at the Stds, 15s, 18, or Open Nats... that is, we haven't tested it in conditions where a dozen or more gliders of equal performance might approach the cyliner in a very short span of time. Chris O'Callaghan In the 2002 Sports & 18m Nationals in Lubbock we had about 81 gliders in the contest - about evenly split between sports & 18m. A finish cylinder was used and in 10 days x 80 gliders i don't recall any serious issues. The 18m gliders were more often finishing in a short span of time. I've heard a lot of Theories on why the finish cylinder is unsafe, but almost all the contests I've done in the last 3+ years have used cylinders - in Practice my opinion is they are safer than finish gates. Years ago when flying gates the CD changed start & finish directions on different days. I remember at least 2 guys finishing in the wrong direction through the gate. I never want to see that again. Chris R |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Andy,
FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within 500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary for takeoff and landing. If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the field and make any appropriate pattern, including no pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder if there is any people, places or things there. I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves, but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line? 500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate crew is sitting at the start of the finish line. Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish cylinder. JJ |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
At 05:00 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
Andy, FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within 500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary for takeoff and landing. If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the field and make any appropriate pattern, including no pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder if there is any people, places or things there. I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves, but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line? 500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate crew is sitting at the start of the finish line. Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish cylinder. I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some good arguments you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting hairs because it tries to read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass or because, as you say, 'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the gate is no different than the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves a straight line and one involves a curved line. If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway? I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have a ceremony. 9B |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Andy,
I think you may have misinterpreted my statement concerning 'diving at the edge of the cylinder'. I don't do that. I aim to be at 500 feet at 1 mile. As you know, the scoring program uses the GPS altimiter error, that existed just prior to take off and applies this error to the GPS reading in the finish cylinder. Read, you can miss it by just a few feet. Been there, done that, so I now start a gentle pull up when my range reads 1 mile. This doesn't have to be any kind of a precise maneuver and if you miss the exact 1 mile mark, it doesn't mean anything, just insure you log a couple of dots above the magic 500 foot point. No math required, here. I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some good arguments you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting hairs because it tries to read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass or because, as you say, 'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the gate is no different than the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves a straight line and one involves a curved line. If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway? We don't, but somebody's still there to say, 'Good Finish, JJ', It's a tradition, I guess. Sounds good, but means nothing. I did like hearing Charlie saying, 'Good finish, JJ, Good contest, John' I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have a ceremony. Grrrrrrrrr, a Neanderthal hugging a Wuss, maybe we can sell tickets. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Well, I like the fight you put up, at any rate. I won't tell anyone
you're a nice guy in person... OK? We'll have to continue to disagree. But I think we've each carried our argument as far as it can go via a discussion board. Next comes beers and brawling. Let's plan an evening for the week before the 2006 nats at the Mexican Restaurant in Yreka. I think we can pull together a few other people to sit on either side of the teeter-totter. Should be fun! Cheers and good gliding. And check your six before pulling anywhere, be it finish line or cylinder. OC |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "John Sinclair" wrote in message ... 9B, Using you're interpretation of the FAR's, I can't make a straight in landing. I Disagree. Deliberately going below 500 feet with the intention of making a low pass, then climbing back above 500 feet, to then enter the pattern is something I wouldn't want to justify to the federalies. JJ Your logic says I'd get in trouble (in an airplane) for doing a practice ILS approach to minimums, overflying the runway, and then entering the pattern for landing. In airplanes I've done 50 ft, 150 kts, holding the gear low approaches at both San Jose and Oakland Internationals, and at NAS Moffett Field. I did hear from the FAA on one of them; the controller called "nice approach". |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Let's let the rules committee and the directors decide
if we are taking any unnecessary risks in our sanctioned contests. I believe we laid out the facts for them. Cheers, JJ At 23:00 23 March 2005, wrote: Well, I like the fight you put up, at any rate. I won't tell anyone you're a nice guy in person... OK? We'll have to continue to disagree. But I think we've each carried our argument as far as it can go via a discussion board. Next comes beers and brawling. Let's plan an evening for the week before the 2006 nats at the Mexican Restaurant in Yreka. I think we can pull together a few other people to sit on either side of the teeter-totter. Should be fun! Cheers and good gliding. And check your six before pulling anywhere, be it finish line or cylinder. OC |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I suspect that, like the mandatory ELTs, the rules
committe may decide that CDs are too ignorant to decide for themselves, and take the option away from CDs and hosting bodies of deciding for themselves to use cylinders. JJ makes good arguments for some locations, but I'm not inclined to bless a decision against finish gates for every contest everywhere forever. And it sounds like this is where this is going, just like ELTs. As a youngster (relatively) who plans to live a long time, I will likely outlive most of you and endure the consequences of either policies that are too lax OR too strict. Depending on how your ideas helped or hurt the sport, I will (figuratively) find your graves and place either flowers or something else on it to 'reward' your decisions ![]() I'm still on the fence over finish gate vs. cylinder, for some locations, but I'm sure I'll have a stronger, wiser opinion by the time I'm as old as JJ ![]() At 00:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote: Let's let the rules committee and the directors decide if we are taking any unnecessary risks in our sanctioned contests. I believe we laid out the facts for them. Cheers, JJ At 23:00 23 March 2005, wrote: Well, I like the fight you put up, at any rate. I won't tell anyone you're a nice guy in person... OK? We'll have to continue to disagree. But I think we've each carried our argument as far as it can go via a discussion board. Next comes beers and brawling. Let's plan an evening for the week before the 2006 nats at the Mexican Restaurant in Yreka. I think we can pull together a few other people to sit on either side of the teeter-totter. Should be fun! Cheers and good gliding. And check your six before pulling anywhere, be it finish line or cylinder. OC Mark J. Boyd |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seniors Contest | Bob Fidler | Soaring | 68 | March 17th 05 03:50 AM |
Why does the Sporting code require "Goal" to be a finish point??? | Mark Zivley | Soaring | 31 | October 18th 04 10:31 PM |
TAT scoring question | Mark Zivley | Soaring | 34 | September 6th 04 04:55 AM |
Carbon Fiber - Achieving Glossy Finish w/o GelCoat | RKT | Home Built | 7 | March 8th 04 06:15 AM |
Start Anywhere Cylinder (SSA rules proposal) | Mark Navarre | Soaring | 15 | September 25th 03 01:13 PM |