Time for Separate 18m Records?

Jfitch wrote:
"produce an example of a record owned by a motorglider that was achieved by flying too low over unlandable terrain. If you cannot, then you have no argument."

The reason for no response is that this is a false challenge. The issue is not safety nor flying over unlandable terrain. The availability of a motor is a risk management tool. It helps the pilot manage much more than just safety risks. It allows for management of land out risk, risk of adverse decision in crossing large overcast areas or potentially unworkable blue areas, risk of delay by flying into loss of convection, risk of overnight retrieves and other non dangerous risks. The pure glider pilot has only his or her wits to manage those risks and no other tool if they are wrong - and so they make more conservative decisions. But they are not "safer" decisions. That is why I say that availability of a motor makes it a different sport.

I concede that in good conditions close to home there is very little difference between having a motor and not. The difference arises when you are far from home and faced with a decision that might put you on the ground. The fellow with the motor has a tool that makes that decision much less consequential. This is why I believe that the records should be different categories.

ROY

Anybody arguing for or against motorgliders as a "safety" solution or "risk management tool" when flying over ANY terrain except an actual airport with suitable runway access needs to see Dave Nadler's presentation at the 2020 SSA Convention on motorglider reliability REALITY.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R--m0NDR0j8

Many thanks to Dave, one of the most experienced motorglider enthusiasts, but a realist above all.

Also, thanks for his eye-opening analysis of a catastrophic in-flight emergency that resulted in a dual bailout and crash in a remote area. The video explaining his experience and its aftermath should be required viewing for all aspiring (and current) cross-country pilots. It definitely reorganized my thinking!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8I3A3dqsu0

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 5:46:47 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:
Jfitch wrote:
"produce an example of a record owned by a motorglider that was achieved by flying too low over unlandable terrain. If you cannot, then you have no argument."

The reason for no response is that this is a false challenge. The issue is not safety nor flying over unlandable terrain. The availability of a motor is a risk management tool. It helps the pilot manage much more than just safety risks. It allows for management of land out risk, risk of adverse decision in crossing large overcast areas or potentially unworkable blue areas, risk of delay by flying into loss of convection, risk of overnight retrieves and other non dangerous risks. The pure glider pilot has only his or her wits to manage those risks and no other tool if they are wrong - and so they make more conservative decisions. But they are not "safer" decisions. That is why I say that availability of a motor makes it a different sport.

I concede that in good conditions close to home there is very little difference between having a motor and not. The difference arises when you are far from home and faced with a decision that might put you on the ground. The fellow with the motor has a tool that makes that decision much less consequential. This is why I believe that the records should be different categories.

ROY

"The issue is not safety nor flying over unlandable terrain. The availability of a motor is a risk management tool." Your premise then is that a motorglider makes record attempts more convenient and therefore easier. There is no doubt about this. However there are MANY things that make record attempts more convenient and easier: the availability of a full time crew, higher performance gliders (even in the same class), the proximity of good soaring terrain to your home, independent wealth, etc. A motor is not the only - or even foremost - difference. So if you want the granularity of motors introduced to records, then several other differentiators should come at the same time, or even first. No one would suggest that it is easier to set a 15m record in a PIK20E vs. a JS-3 because it has a motor.

I've no problem with increasing the granularity of records. The motivation for records is vanity (I say that without judgement - do what turns your prop), and so increasing the opportunity to indulge is overall to the good. There is no need for them to be a zero sum game. Picking out motors as an exception among many variations seems arbitrary. My preference would be to have a "claiming record" such as is done in auto and horse racing. You claim a record, say in the $20,000 class. If your record is recognized anyone may purchase that glider from you for $20,000. This would quickly sort out motors or not, new gliders vs. old, and even expensive avionics. Most pilots would hesitate to enter their JS-3 or AS-33 in the $20K class against the PIK20E, knowing anyone could buy their glider for $20K if the record was granted.

On Tuesday, April 21, 2020 at 5:46:47 PM UTC-7, Roy B. wrote:

The difference arises when you are far from home and faced with a decision that might put you on the
ground. The fellow with the motor has a tool that makes that decision much less consequential. This is
why I believe that the records should be different categories.

So I flew a ASW-20B for about 15 years, then upgraded to ASH-26E in 2001. Flew each for about 1500 hours and many long flights with a number of records in each. A few years ago I traded the ASH-26E for a ASW-27b. Essentially the same glider performance-wise.

My wife and I work full time, but she retired near the time I switched gliders. As a nurse, she couldn't take a Monday off due to a long retrieve on Sunday. Before 2001, we did have a few late retrieves and got home just in time to take a shower and go to work after an all night drive. Ugh!

I compare the ASH-26E to a 1-26 (in which I even did diamond goal). In the 1-26, the crew is generally a few minutes away after landing out. A bad day is when the glider landed on one side of an obstacle and access requires driving several hours to get to the field that was only a mile away. in the motorglider, a bad day is the engine failing to start, landing in a nice field, and waiting hours for the crew to arrive. A good day is the crew catching the wing on landing the 1-26 -or- the engine starts and I can motor home, or climb back into the good air.

Best I can tell, I've taken the same "risks" the last few years without the motor as I did when I had the '26E. I almost never needed the engine to get home, and now I still almost never land out. The difference is that now I know we can just take our time with the retrieve and I can always take Monday off, or just go in to work late. I've had to relight a couple times, and have landed a few miles outbound. Those would have been fixed by a motor.

What if I could fly the way we did at the Hilton Ranch? Fly hard and after a land out, just wait for the helicopter to come get me. Then a crew will get the the glider and have it ready to fly the next morning. OK, so the one time I landed out, they sent a towplane :-)

You can buy a lot of aero retrieves for the cost of a motor. Or a decent motorhome to spend the night in at the landout location. :-)

So yeah, a motorglider provides a lot of convenience. But a lot of $$, a full time crew, and spare time does too.

5Z