Motorgliders (long)

There's another question on the survey that might benifit from some
explanation. Since I proposed it, here it is:
----------------------

8.0 Airfield Landing Bonus for Motorgliders
For a motorglider to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus,
current rules require it to land on an approved airfield before the
use of the engine.

8.1 Should motorgliders that start their engine over an approved
airfield be allowed to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus?
----------------------
Here is my letter to the Rules Committee:

I'd appreciate it if you could put the following proposal into the
rules system for consideration.

Currently, pilots can be awarded a 25 point bonus if they land at an
airport rather than landing out. Even motorgliders are required to
land at an airport before starting the engine to get the bonus, and
this is were the potential for less safe flying can arise. Consider
the situation I encountered at our Region 8 contest this year:

I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City).

So, the bonus rule, as currently implemented, can have actually
discourage the safest behavior when a motorglider is involved. Besides
the situation described above were not landing is obviously the safest
course, it is usually safer even when there are no other gliders
involved, because it avoids the dangers inherent in another landing
and takeoff.

Here's my suggestion for modifying the rule to encourage safer flying
by using the air restart ability of a motorglider:

10.10.4.1 A pilot with an incomplete task who lands at a designated
airfield can receive a score bonus for such a landing. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

(10.10.4.2,3, and 4: no change)

10.10.4.5 [delete] (this deletion allows the pilot to receive the
bonus, even if he lands at the airfield after attempting to start the
motor, should the motor fail to start, or weather or other conditions
make in wise to land at the airfield even if the motor starts)

Please let me know if you or others on the Rules Committee have
concerns about this proposal , and I'll do my best to answer them.

Regards,

Eric Greenwell

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Of course, its safer to land (as a glider) and then launch (as a
motor-glider),
especially if low. Barring congestion problems as in Eric's case below...
Best Regards, Dave

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
There's another question on the survey that might benifit from some
explanation. Since I proposed it, here it is:
----------------------

8.0 Airfield Landing Bonus for Motorgliders
For a motorglider to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus,
current rules require it to land on an approved airfield before the
use of the engine.

8.1 Should motorgliders that start their engine over an approved
airfield be allowed to claim the 25-point airfield landing bonus?
----------------------
Here is my letter to the Rules Committee:

I'd appreciate it if you could put the following proposal into the
rules system for consideration.

Currently, pilots can be awarded a 25 point bonus if they land at an
airport rather than landing out. Even motorgliders are required to
land at an airport before starting the engine to get the bonus, and
this is were the potential for less safe flying can arise. Consider
the situation I encountered at our Region 8 contest this year:

I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City).

So, the bonus rule, as currently implemented, can have actually
discourage the safest behavior when a motorglider is involved. Besides
the situation described above were not landing is obviously the safest
course, it is usually safer even when there are no other gliders
involved, because it avoids the dangers inherent in another landing
and takeoff.

Here's my suggestion for modifying the rule to encourage safer flying
by using the air restart ability of a motorglider:

10.10.4.1 A pilot with an incomplete task who lands at a designated
airfield can receive a score bonus for such a landing. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

(10.10.4.2,3, and 4: no change)

10.10.4.5 [delete] (this deletion allows the pilot to receive the
bonus, even if he lands at the airfield after attempting to start the
motor, should the motor fail to start, or weather or other conditions
make in wise to land at the airfield even if the motor starts)

Please let me know if you or others on the Rules Committee have
concerns about this proposal , and I'll do my best to answer them.

Regards,

Eric Greenwell

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Earlier Eric wrote.. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

Sounds like the "In-flight relight" at a different location, to me.
Best Regards,


JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
Earlier Eric wrote.. A motorglider
will be deemed to have landed at an airfield if the engine is started
within one mile of the airfield and at least 800 feet above it,
providing this is the first engine start since beginning the task.

Sounds like the "In-flight relight" at a different location, to me.
Best Regards,

It's not a relight, because the task is over for that pilot, and he
can't attempt the task again. The airport bonus is awarded to
encourage safer flying, but did not always have that effect for a
motorglider pilot. The proposed rule attempts to extend that
encouragement to the motorglider pilot. No racing purpose is served by
having the glider land.
--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
.....................
I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City). .....................

A pilot flying a pure sailplane in the situation you describe would have to
come up with a plan. Maybe even having to land in a field next to the
airport if the situation got really bad. But, because you have an engine,
you seem to be asking for a special privilege. What you suggest might be
safer, but, is it fair to all of the pilots flying pure sailplanes that you
should be exempt from the same exposures as them just because you have an
engine?

Duane

In article UGuab.384426$cF.116390@rwcrnsc53,
says...

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
.....................
I arrived at Coulee City airport about 1300' agl. Already on the
airport runway were a glider, and a second glider was getting ready to
land. I elected to start my engine, losing the airport bonus, rather
than land and add to the congestion at this small airfield. Because of
this, I lost second place by 25 points to the glider that was landing
(we were both scored as landing at Coulee City). .....................

A pilot flying a pure sailplane in the situation you describe would have to
come up with a plan. Maybe even having to land in a field next to the
airport if the situation got really bad. But, because you have an engine,
you seem to be asking for a special privilege. What you suggest might be
safer, but, is it fair to all of the pilots flying pure sailplanes that you
should be exempt from the same exposures as them just because you have an
engine?

My action benefited the unpowered gliders by reducing congestion at
the airport.

Isn't that a good thing that should be encouraged?

If you were one of the gliders landing at the airport, would you
rather I landed or stayed out of the way?

And if I was able to stay out of the way, would you really begrudge
me the same 25 points you got for essentially the same goal: arriving
at an airport to make the end of the flight safer?

Would the rule proposed be agreeable to you if it also allowed a
glider to get the bonus if it landed near the airport to avoid a
safety problem like I described?

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.................
My action benefited the unpowered gliders by reducing congestion at
the airport.

And if I was able to stay out of the way, would you really begrudge
me the same 25 points you got for essentially the same goal: arriving
at an airport to make the end of the flight safer?

Would the rule proposed be agreeable to you if it also allowed a
glider to get the bonus if it landed near the airport to avoid a
safety problem like I described?
Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

I know what you are saying. Been there, done that. At a Hobbs Nat when a
squall line developed suddenly, about 26 sailplanes landed at a small single
strip airport in about 20 minutes. We somehow worked it out. At a
Moriairty Nats I was the last to arrive at a small airport that we found had
been turned into a dump. The first 6 sailplanes were still in the little
spaces that were landable (the surrounding area was unlandable). I landed
in a short piece of ground near the end of the old runway and came to a stop
a foot or so from a discarded refrigerator and a couple of microwave ovens.
In both cases it sure would have been nice to have been able to extend an
engine and have other choices. But, I did not have that choice.

For the flight that you stated, what you did might have been safer, but what
would you have done if you had not had an engine? If you fly in a pure
sailplane contest, should you not be exposed to the same mental strain and
decision making of the other contestants? There are many special
disadvantages as to starting the engine as you state, but that is mostly
because you elected to fly "out of class". Also, the motorgliders with an
engine in the nose do not have many of those problems. Yes, I know that not
many exist .... now. If the pure sailplane pilot has to make an off
field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot returns very late and
hungry. The motorglider pilot flys home, has a nice dinner, and gets to bed
early. Is that fair? If you use the engine to modify your decision making
are you competing the same as the other pilots?

I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

Duane

I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

If you follow your train of thought to "total fairness" there is only
one possible conclusion: the ONLY way to be totally fair is to exclude
MGs from the contest because there is, simply, no way to eliminate all
possible inequities. In other words, "total fairness" is best
described as "threat elimination". Recommended reading on this subject
is "Animal Farm" by George Orwell.

In article e9Lab.525378$uu5.87796@sccrnsc04,
says...

For the flight that you stated, what you did might have been safer, but what
would you have done if you had not had an engine?

In that particular case, I would've landed at the airport, as I think
that, overall, it would've been the safest thing to do.

If you fly in a pure
sailplane contest,

Indulge me while I be a bit peevish: I don't think I am flying in a
"pure" sailplane contest: I fly in sailplane contests. Some of the
gliders in the contest have motors, some have flaps, some have two
seats, some can go to a very high (or low) wing loadings, and so on.
We write the rules to accommodate these variations to various degrees
(e.g., almost no accommodation for the 1-26 class, lots of it for the
Sports class).

should you not be exposed to the same mental strain and
decision making of the other contestants?

During the task, yes, but once the task is over, why not encourage the
safest behaviour? We've already had two rule changes to encourage
safer behaviour (I.e, discourage landing out) in unpowered gliders
(allowing aero retrieves and the 25 point airport bonus), so I'm
suggesting a small change to the airport bonus to do the same thing
for a powered glider.

There are many special
disadvantages as to starting the engine as you state, but that is mostly
because you elected to fly "out of class". Also, the motorgliders with an
engine in the nose do not have many of those problems. Yes, I know that not
many exist .... now.

The current self-launchers, even the Stemme, have similar problems
with starting reliability. Sometime in the future, we will need to
consider if the expected reliability of the battery powered sailplanes
(like the Antares) changes the arguments I've presented.

If the pure sailplane pilot has to make an off
field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot returns very late and
hungry. The motorglider pilot flys home, has a nice dinner, and gets to bed
early. Is that fair?

It's a balance: the motorglider pilot is more likely "land out"
because of it's higher wing loading and the need to stop soaring 500'+
higher than the same glider without a motor. So, for contest flying,
sometimes it's a benefit, sometimes it's not. My opinion is the
serious contest pilot will fly without a motor, because the low wing
loading then available is almost always the more important aspect.

Here's a similar question: If a pilot of an unpowered glider has to
make an off field landing it sometimes works out that the pilot
returns very late and hungry. The pilot of an unpowered glider that
landed at an airport gets an aerotow retrieve has a nice dinner, and
gets to bed early. Is that fair? In the past we didn't allow aero
retrieves. Was that fair?

If you use the engine to modify your decision making
are you competing the same as the other pilots?

Our decision making is always affected by the equipment we fly. The
Open class at Region 8 this year featured a 20 meter Jantar, a 26
meter Nimbus 4 M, an 18 meter ASH 26 E, an ASH 25, and a Nimbus 3. I'm
sure we didn't make the same decisions, even accounting for the motors
in the 26 and the 4!

How about this question, instead: "Did the presence of the engine
cause you to place higher or lower than you would've without it?" I
think I finished lower; JJ thinks I finished higher. My philosophy is
I've flown a lot of contests, my wife has made a lot of retrieves, and
we're both happier if I accept some competitive disadvantage and we
don't have to do that anymore.

I am not really against what you propose, but the total concept should be
thought through. I am really just asking a question about total fairness.

These are good questions, and our idea of "fairness" continues to
evolve. The change to aerotow retrieves about 10-15 years ago is an
illustration of that.

--
!Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply
directly

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
.. .
In article e9Lab.525378$uu5.87796@sccrnsc04,
says...


These are good questions, and our idea of "fairness" continues to
evolve. The change to aerotow retrieves about 10-15 years ago is an
illustration of that.

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Like I stated in my first post, I am just asking questions.

When I used the term "pure sailplane" contest I was using the term in the
"purest sense". The rules for Std, 15-M, & Open started as rules for FAI
class sailplanes. The FAI class definitions did not include engines. Motor
gliders were/are a separate class. But through evolution, definitions are
becoming confused.

As to the aerotow retrieve, I disagree with it. I think that we should
still have the rule that "all retrieves will be by trailer". Besides the
rest issue, sometimes aerotow retrieves are available only to the pilots
with extra spending funds. It is not fair to the pilots trying to compete
on a budget.

Duane