500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll

Dennis observed pretty much what I did at Hobbs - finishing at a set height
away from the normal finish gate puts more workload on pilots during the
final glide. In most contests, you can see the finish gate and judge your
approach accordingly. For a "virtual" donut gate, you are relying on
instruments.

Then, after the finish, you are avoiding all the other classes whistling in
at red line while descending from your now excessive finish height.

Again, I'm not going to argue against a specific finish height, but
finishing 2 miles or more away from the normal finish gate is more difficult
in my experience and doesn't add safety, which was the stated goal.

And my final point - most flight computers won't give you a glide to the
outside of a cylinder, so you are relying on doing math in your head on the
last few miles home.

I can do final glide math in my head, than you very much, but it's harder
than following your flight computer. I fail to see how extra work load is
increasing safety.

Mike ASW 20 WA




"dennis brown" wrote in message
ink.net...
Safer, in theory, seems to be the proper phrase.

We had this for one day at Hobbs regionals this year and 1000 ft min. for
the
rest of the contest (sports class).

Theory is right. The practical aspect is that I spent more heads down time
looking at my distance versus altitude as I got inside the last 10 miles
or so
of the finish cylinder. When we had a finish gate, we
knew where it was, we could see it. No heads down. We could still finish
well above worm disruption altitude. I see no benefit in the lowest
finishes.
Anything lower than a hundred or so feet has no redeeming virtue.

Another anti-safety aspect is that finishing at 1000 ft at 2 miles from
the
field means that you spend considerable time in the immediate vincinity
of the pattern slowing down and descending. More time means more
exposure. There is an optimum here. Too little time is bad - no options.
Too much time is bad - too much exposure to other lawn darts.

The last part is that there really needs to be a final aligning point,
regardless of the task called. Not all the classes should have the same
final turn, but all should be within a relatively small (45 degrees?)
angle
from the field, located so as to put the glider into a downwind leg with
minimal manuvering.

I think the finish cylinder is an unexpected (to me, anyway) FAILURE in
capital letters.
Dennis

In article 7YO9b.481795$uu5.83242@sccrnsc04, "Paul Remde"

wrote:
Hi,

This discussion is very interesting.

I applaud John for his efforts to make sailplane racing safer. I agree
with
the theory that if we just move the playing field up 500 feet, it will
dramatically improve safety. It is my impression that is what he is
trying
to do.

Why is that so bad?

I also agree that I'd prefer to have fewer rules, but in this case I must
lean toward safety over simplicity.

I must admit that I am a pilot with 2 young children and I will vote for
anything that will allow me to continue to fly contests with less reason
to
worry that I'll leave my kids without a father or my wife without her
husband.

I must also admit that I am a relatively inexperienced contest pilot -
having flown in only 4 contests.

Fly Safe,

Paul Remde

"Andy Blackburn" wrote in message
...
I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness
of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should
it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information
will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap
it and at what level of competition. If the intent
is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't
object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm
against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical,
empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules
I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating
the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track
the bigger objectives.

9B


At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote:
We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle
doesn't pay much
attention to rules anyway.

John Cochrane wrote:
Fellow US pilots:

This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few
days. It contains
a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read
it, think about
it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits
newer, less
experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the
top 5 national and
world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like
this idea for
your contests, you have to voice your opinion.

Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have
to be above 500 feet
AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If
you don't make
this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance
points when you
land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line,
you may then
dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.

Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that
awful situation,
5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe
minus 50 feet.
You're passing over the last good field, and the last
chance to
properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for
wires, etc. From
here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in
to whatever you
find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal,
and land in this
good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points
and more call
you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not
fun. It's not
safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules.

The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life
decision. If you
don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get
speed points. Make
your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer
to squeak it in to
the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good
field 5 miles
out, do that. Forget the race.

This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport
up 500 feet. The
race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport
located 500 feet
above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just
as fun, and just
as challenging.

The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps
only sports
class. It will have to have substantial support from
pilots before it
makes it to nationals.

For more details, including accident statistics, see
my article 'Safer
Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online
at my website,

http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....ch/Papers/#For
_glider

I will also keep updated versions of this message
on the website - I'm
sure to hear more objections that I can answer in
the FAQ

FAQ:

1. We should leave this to pilot judgment.

We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling
the Mc 0 + 50
feet situation will still take lots of judgment.

There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove
from 'pilot
judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive
advantage. We used
to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose
weight limits,
and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave
the question
whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment.
Now we ban
the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And
so forth.

Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires
extensive
experience and judgment. While there is a good case
that national
level pilots can be expected to have this judgment,
this is not the
case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals,
which are
explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots.

2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the
fun away

This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass.
The actual finish
can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude.

Many pilots think they will end up too high for a
proper low finish,
but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at
500 feet and 80
kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below
redline. It takes
more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try
it - I have.

3. This will lead to unintended consequences that
are even worse.

a) Pulling up over the line.

Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would
lead to pilots
racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line.
Good point.
That's why the proposal is now that you must be over
500 feet for the
whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated
like special
use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay
above 500 feet the
whole way.

b) Traffic problems.

Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside
the line will
interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as
this does not happen
now, and all we've done is move the whole business
up 500 feet. But
moving from a circle to a donut will further separate
finishers from
thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet
counting on
popping up at the last moment.

c) Heads-down

Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports
class has not
revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to
finish over the
airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or
so margin over the
donut.

4. This isn't the number one problem.

It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are
still the number
one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low
energy finish are
in the US a distant third.

Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking
the number one
problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs
are not the
number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and
look around, and
avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule
making. Assembly
errors are not the number one problem, yet we all
do checks and the
rules now require them. If we can improve the #99
problem, at no cost
to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a
little bit safer.

5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but
losing all speed
points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on
a 5 minute penalty
or something?

The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks
5 miles out when
the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole
point is to remove
'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points'
from the
mental calculation. The only way to do this is to
give essentially the
same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking
it in to the
airport.

6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand
the heat, get out
of the kitchen.

Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion.
If you think that
physical danger and an occasional fatality are important
to keep
soaring exiting, vote against this rule.


Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion
and has no
connection with the rules committee.

John Cochrane (BB)