![]() |
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 |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hear-ye, Hear-ye, Hear-ye,
Court is now in session, the honorable Chuck U Farley preciding. CD, you ar accused of not holding the gate and thereby creating an injustice for the last 3 launchers in sports class. You are further accused of gross injustice to the finishers by expunging the results of day 3 to correct the original injustice (see indictment no.1). How do you plead....................................? Chad wrote: Just catching up with the discussion here and reading JJ's post. I was also just thinking of the situation 2 years ago at Parowan he mentions. I got bit by that situation- I was the second last to be towed to the dead spot, landed back, and was last to relight only to be towed to dying lift at a second drop zone opposite the field. I worked 0.5 knot lift and landed out 11 miles from the field on course, in the rain, with minor but unflyable damage. Everyone in front of me made it on course. Everyone behind me (the re- relights) fell out. I didn't think to protest and glad I didn't, but I sure thought the CD was too cavalier about opening the gate. There should be some printed guidance for CDs on how to deal with these situations to avoid protests and pitting sportsmanship against fairness. A few observations- 1) This idea that all gliders need to be towed to the same launch spot is silly. We need to all be given roughly equal chances to contact lift, and towpilots are as impartial as they come. If the lift zone shifts, don't keep dropping ships off under virga! Ultimately, you end up with more relights and a longer launch cue which only increases the chance of not giving the field a sporting chance. 2) The 2000' is a standard tow height, just like there is a standard minimum task time. It can AND SHOULD be changed by the CD given the conditions and the input of his advisors. Dropping ships off at the southern end of Little Salt Lake 6 miles from Parowan airport is unsafe for low performance sports class ships. Why do we require high energy finishes to be at 500-800' altitude, while we expect "fall outs" to come back low energy at 500' or less??? We need some guidance on safe glide cones after tow release while allowing for a modicum of searching for lift. A suggestion- take a 35:1 glider, derate its glide by 33%, yielding 4.5 statute miles per thousand feet. Then allow for a 1000' pattern. Thus, a 2000' drop can only be made out 4.5 statue miles. If a greater distance is anticipated, then the tow height should be raised. This is not unreasonable given the entries in sports class, and would still be sporting if not a little unsafe still. This would also prevent the too high problem-- If you towplane encounters lift early on tow, or your sailplane is light, you end up hitting 2000' ceiling well before the thermal that everyone is circling in 5 miles from the field. Then you must release and lose altitude before getting to the gaggle/lift zone/etc, putting you at a double disadvantage- you lost altitude plus you probably don't have the airport in safe glide anymore. You Duo Discus guys don't know what I'm talking about here I know... I must stress that while pilots are responsible for their safety on course and should evaluate contest goals against aircraft and personal safety, the tow phase of flight has few options for improving safety. This is a built-in unsafe procedure we have in contests for moderate performance aircraft. This is also at the root of a fairness issue. 3) Advisors should be spaced throughout the launch order, so there is always someone near the back and front. Yes, this may mean more advisors for a larger contest. Suggest 2 advisors or 20% of field, whichever is greater. 4) The decision to open the gate, even with contestants having trouble staying up, should be based on some key questions: Are the conditions deteriorating to the degree that the task or pre-task period is becoming clearly unsafe? Were all contestants given a "fighting chance" to gain altitude and reach the start gate? Would an experienced pilot/ viable competitor not be able to start given the conditions? 5) The gate opening decision is critical, and as evidenced here is the most important decision a CD can make. There should be a go-no go decision tree, just like a takeoff roll and climbout, leading up to it. Not just a perfunctory "gate will open in 15 minutes" call. I think we can definitely go overboard trying to make it fair, and we should not try to take the advantage of launch order out of the equation. Sometimes luck plays a factor, and that is part of the sport. I hope my fellow pilots would not classify me as a whiner in my years of taking a 34:1 sailplane to regional and national sport class contests, but we need to fix this problem. Both Parowan and this CD have had repeated issues with similar scenarios. The SRA and soaring community should provide guidance as to how we want the CDs to fix this. Those are my suggestions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Not fair. | Maxwell[_2_] | Piloting | 34 | June 30th 08 03:53 PM |
What percentage of USA glider pilots compete? | Jeremy Zawodny | Soaring | 30 | April 4th 07 05:30 AM |
Fair Share | Mike Granby | Owning | 17 | July 19th 05 06:23 AM |
OT-Fair reporting? | Joel Corwith | Soaring | 4 | November 28th 04 05:54 PM |
OT-Fair reporting? | Joel Corwith | Home Built | 3 | November 28th 04 04:12 AM |