500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll

Andy Blackburn wrote in message ...
I shold have been clearer on this point Eric.

If you are at 700' and 4 miles, you will not make it
to 500' at 1 mile, you will have to stop and climb.
A Mc=0 glide to the inner edge of the donut in my ship
requires 886' (by the factory polar). If I climb to
a Mc=3 or Mc=4 glide, I am at 997' to 1053'. You might
climb even higher if you want any buffer.

I believe that the optimal finish for pilots who have
adequate altitude for a speed finish will be to shoot
for the top outside edge of the donut (with some buffer)
and then bleed airspeed to the inner edge to hold altitude.
A pilot shooting for this on a 120 knot glide Mc=6
will be at 908' at 4 miles, which is below the guy
making a save and wanting to make a flatter glide to
the inner part of the donut.

The simple point here is that all of this climbing
and mixed traffic happens at 4-5 miles from the field
rather than 8-10 miles under the current rules. This
is because the ground forces the issue later with the
extra 500' built into the finish altitude. Since altitude
separation (difference in glide angle times distance)
goes up linearly with distance and the amount of horizontal
separation goes up with distance as well, the potential
for mixed climbing and highspeed traffic would likely
increase under the 500' rule. You can make different
assumptions about what altitude you might stop and
climb, but the difference due to the rules remains
the same.

I don't see how this is any different; we have to see and avoid other
sailplanes from the time we start the flight to the time that we have
come to a full stop. There can be gliders thermally anywhere on
course, including directly over turn points. And even if you don't
have the 500 ft rule there can mixing of gliders thermally and
high-speed gliders in-bound to finish.

I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport
except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious
crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum
altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some
competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the
others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy
function and accept the result.

Tom-

However well intentioned I don't think that most pilots realize what a
pandoras box the "safety" issue is. Put bluntly, if the SRA and SSA become
focused upon safety issues in this sport it is a death sentence in and of
itself and I for one will no longer be racing in contests sanctioned by
these organizations.

When people become so parental that they "know" what is best for the rest of
society they have lost all perspective of what life and freedom are about.
Do you mean to tell mean that you honestly think most pilots are incapable
of making reasonable judgements? If so I'd say that you are a brave man for
even flying within the same area with these renegades. If these rules pass
and become the status quo you will be left with a system that is paralyzed
by its very existence i.e. there is no perfectly safe way to race a glider.
This will split the SSA resulting in no winners. Please think about this
before you vote.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

I feel that those low altitude finishes add nothing to the sport
except for some broken gliders (and pilots!) and some very anxious
crews. Furthermore, it encourages violation of FARs for minimum
altitude. There may be some pilots who think they may have some
competitive edge because they are willing to push it lower than the
others, and this may be the case. I say cast your vote, let democracy
function and accept the result.

Tom, that is like saying that in NASCAR (or F1, or CART, or drag
racing) fast laps add nothing to the sport except for some broken cars
(and drivers!). WE ARE TALKING ABOUT RACING! I, for one, love the
rush of a low, fast finish at the end of a nicely judged 60 mile final
glide - that's one of the reasons I race! Is there more risk than
just entering the pattern at 800 feet with all the 2-33s? Probably
(although my bet is the stats don't support that conclusion).

If you feel racing is too dangerous, then by all means don't do it,
but please don't ruin if for those of us who like it the way it is -
challenging, exciting, beautiful to watch, and yes, a little risky!

It used to be simple - CD set a task, and fastest glider around wins.
Now, you don't know how far everyone is flying, and going faster
doesn't even mean you are going to win - but by God you will do it
"safely"!

Maybe it's time to set up a separate racing series for those of us who
prefer to race than go on organized cross-countries in gaggles - Hell,
it shouldn't take too long for us to kill ourselves off with our low
finishes and pinpoint turnpoints, then everybody can go back to TATs
with 20 mile areas, 15 extra minutes and 1000 ft high speed limited
finishes.

YAWN

Kirk Stant

Maybe it's time to set up a separate racing series for those of us who
prefer to race than go on organized cross-countries in gaggles - Hell,
it shouldn't take too long for us to kill ourselves off with our low
finishes and pinpoint turnpoints, then everybody can go back to TATs
with 20 mile areas, 15 extra minutes and 1000 ft high speed limited
finishes.

Kirk...you forgot the handwringing and moaning about what they must be
forgetting to add to the list of rules re safety.....you know the
motto....."you can never be safe enough!". At least they'll have a good
model with John Danforth leading the way.

Now what was that name we were considering for the new organization?!

Casey

Kirk,

I love reading your posts because we obviously have such different
views. Your point about NASCAR is amusing because it is hard to find a
more intrusive organization that micromanages their sport. NASCAR is
EXTREMELY safety concious that monitors not only the detailed design
of the car (when was the last time they actually raced "stock cars"?),
but every minute aspect of race operation. If there is a fatality,
such as Earnhardt's, they take action to prevent it from happening
again:

Safety has become a paramount concern this year in NASCAR. Restrictor
plates, throttle limiters and soft walls have all been hot topics in
an effort to find an answer to a single question, "What else can be
done to limit driver injury"?

Should NASCAR mandate the HANS® Device?
By Frank Ryan
October 31, 2000
AutoRacing1.com

I don't think that soaring can accomodate this level of governence.
After all, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsers and a national
TV audience. But to compare our sport to NASCAR on just one aspect
presents a distorted picture.

I agree that there is nothing to compare with a high-speed contest
finish for the adreneline junky. The problem is that most tasks aren't
assigned turnpoints, resulting in gliders approaching the finish line
from all directions. Consequently you can be mixing slow speed gliders
in the pattern (at low altitude) with high-speed finishing gliders.

It IS sad to see this part of the sport go (along with the start line)
since this is the only spectator part of the contest.

Tom

They could drive slower, have mandatory car separation and have to use
blinkers to pass. And to make horse racing safer, they could stop putting
those little men on the horses backs. But to be really safe, they just
shouldn't race!

"Tom Seim" wrote in message
om...
Kirk,

I love reading your posts because we obviously have such different
views. Your point about NASCAR is amusing because it is hard to find a
more intrusive organization that micromanages their sport. NASCAR is
EXTREMELY safety concious that monitors not only the detailed design
of the car (when was the last time they actually raced "stock cars"?),
but every minute aspect of race operation. If there is a fatality,
such as Earnhardt's, they take action to prevent it from happening
again:

Safety has become a paramount concern this year in NASCAR. Restrictor
plates, throttle limiters and soft walls have all been hot topics in
an effort to find an answer to a single question, "What else can be
done to limit driver injury"?

Should NASCAR mandate the HANS® Device?
By Frank Ryan
October 31, 2000
AutoRacing1.com

I don't think that soaring can accomodate this level of governence.
After all, we don't have multi-million dollar sponsers and a national
TV audience. But to compare our sport to NASCAR on just one aspect
presents a distorted picture.

I agree that there is nothing to compare with a high-speed contest
finish for the adreneline junky. The problem is that most tasks aren't
assigned turnpoints, resulting in gliders approaching the finish line
from all directions. Consequently you can be mixing slow speed gliders
in the pattern (at low altitude) with high-speed finishing gliders.

It IS sad to see this part of the sport go (along with the start line)
since this is the only spectator part of the contest.

Tom

"BMacLean" wrote in message .. .
They could drive slower, have mandatory car separation and have to use
blinkers to pass. And to make horse racing safer, they could stop putting
those little men on the horses backs. But to be really safe, they just
shouldn't race!

I guess if you have nothing to say you rely on pointless (and humourless) satire.

Tom