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