Motorgliders and gliders in US contests

In article ,
says...
Eric wrote,

I've never been in a contest where I've had these advantages, because
I didn't do those things.

I guess I got to spell it out. Eric, I'm talking about YOU and JN.

I would be glad to send you (or anyone) my flight files for any
contest. They will show I did not "motor around" until I got a thermal
where the towed gliders didn't go.

I tell you about launch inequities and you say, Oh that, we will be getting a
waiver and fixing all that next year. We are right now, in the process of
amending the rules, so that WAIVERS won't be required next year.

Here is what I said in my email to you. Please note the first eight
words, as I do realize we are filling out a survey that will influence
the rules for 2004:

------
If the 2004 SSA rules don't address this, and we get a waiver for the
2004 Region 8 contest, I'll insist that the contest inform the MG
pilots that they are to follow the towplane path, release at the
correct height (I suggest 2200' AGL, but would accept 2000' AGL
without complaint), and expect their flight files to be checked for
adherence to these rules, with a penalty for non-compliance (I suggest
something like the graduated penalties for missing a turnpoint).
-------------

Let me add one
more advantage you are requesting, Give motorgliders a 25 point (approved
airport landing) bonus for NOT LANDING. But it's s SAFETY issue, isn't it? It
would be much safer to crank up the old put-put and not congest the airport
with all those pure sailplane slobs, down there, fighting for a spot on the
runway. I consider that part of the sport. If you want to play, you must accept
all the hazards along with the rewards this sport offers.

One more time: the Airport Bonus was implemented to increase safety by
encouraging gliders to land at airports instead of landing out. An
unintended consequence of the current implementation is it, in some
circumstances, has the opposite effect of discouraging the safest
practice. The change I propose requires the motorglider to go to the
airport before starting. Tactically speaking, it's better to plan to
land, so I can thermal about 300'-500' lower than I can if I plan an
in-air restart. I gain only convenience (and sometimes safety), by air
starting, not a contest advantage.

I fail to see how encouraging a less safe practice, after the task is
over, helps anyone, including those that have landed or are about to
land at the airport. Why would anyone want one more glider on the
runway? One solution is to eliminate the airport bonus entirely (as
Eisenbeiss suggests), but I am in favor of the airport bonus, and if I
must land to collect it, and can do so without decreasing the safety
of the other pilots using the airport, I will.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also. Now
lets discuss this self-launch a bit further. For years the US rules allowed
self-launching of motorgliders. In about year 2000 the rules were changed to;
ALL LAUNCHES
WILL BE BY AERO-TOW ONLY. Wonder why that change was made? Could it be because
of motorglider abuse of the self-launch privilege? That rule change didn't have
any affect on your Regionals though, you just kept right on allowing your
motorgliders to self-launch. Your not obeying this rule has produced guys like
Tom Siem, who thinks JJ is the guy that wouldn't allow him to self-launch.

You didn't discuss your leaving an airport without enough altitude to make it
home, at 5:00 PM on a day that had been completely overcast for hours. Your
glide was mostly over unlandable terrain, you cranked up the motor, a few miles
out and saved an off-field landing. We havent discussed the REAL inequity on
days like that. Suppose you did hit a bump and were able to climb 500 feet? You
would have been able to make it home and your success would have been a direct
result of your back-up (the put-put). This inequity will ALWAYS be there as
long as motorgliders are allowed to compete with pure sailplanes.

You didn't deny using the IN-FLIGHT RELIGHT, Ever do one of those?
JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also.

If this was just a email spat between us, I'd let it go. You do need
to see my traces, because you posted your claim for the world to see,
and you are wrong. I'm sending you my flight files for 2002; if that
isn't the right contest, tell me the year. Anyone else that's
interested can get them at

http://webpages.charter.net/engreenwell/index.html

Now
lets discuss this self-launch a bit further. For years the US rules allowed
self-launching of motorgliders. In about year 2000 the rules were changed to;
ALL LAUNCHES
WILL BE BY AERO-TOW ONLY. Wonder why that change was made? Could it be because
of motorglider abuse of the self-launch privilege? That rule change didn't have
any affect on your Regionals though, you just kept right on allowing your
motorgliders to self-launch.

I don't know what the reasoning was behind the rules change, but
Ephrata did get a waiver to allow self-launching after the change,
Getting a waiver is "following the rules", and we aren't the only
contest to get waivers for various reasons. At some point they got
sloppy, and stopped requesting the waiver. Shame on them.


You didn't discuss your leaving an airport without enough altitude to make it
home, at 5:00 PM on a day that had been completely overcast for hours. Your
glide was mostly over unlandable terrain,

This is completely wrong. The Coulee City to Ephrata route is
sprinkled with mile square farmed fields, either fallow (soft dirt) or
cut (short stubble). Any glider, even a 1-26 instead of an ASH 26,
leaving Coulee city with the altitude I had could stay within easy
reach of a safe field. Since you doubt this, please ask an experienced
Ephrata pilot that you trust about it.

you cranked up the motor, a few miles
out and saved an off-field landing. We havent discussed the REAL inequity on
days like that. Suppose you did hit a bump and were able to climb 500 feet? You
would have been able to make it home and your success would have been a direct
result of your back-up (the put-put).

Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
Lake, maybe making it in; or could've have landed in the long, flat,
stubble field I chose to start over. At only 10 miles from Ephrata, it
would've been a quick and easy retrieve.

This inequity will ALWAYS be there as
long as motorgliders are allowed to compete with pure sailplanes.

My previous posts have detailed the tradeoffs already, so I will
simply point out, in a situation like this, the motor offers a
CONVENIENCE (no retrieve), not a SCORING advantage (better
thermalling).

Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you.

You didn't deny using the IN-FLIGHT RELIGHT, Ever do one of those?
JJ Sinclair

No.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

Eric wroteYou do need
to see my traces, because you posted your claim for the world to see,
and you are wrong.

On the day in question, 5 July, 2002, NK and I were the only ships in the
release area right after tow. There was no lift. I saw 2 long wings flashing
way up on the hill and assumed it must be 6A and JN. Eric has sent me his trace
for that day and it shows he shut down in the release area, at the release
altitude. I apologize for accusing him of motoring up to the thermal in
question. I would say in my defense, that MG pilots in that contest, have told
me they prefer to self-launch, because it allows them to search around for a
thermal, but Eric wasn't one of them.

I don't know what the reasoning was behind the rules change, but
Ephrata did get a waiver to allow self-launching after the change,
Getting a waiver is "following the rules", and we aren't the only
contest to get waivers for various reasons. At some point they got
sloppy, and stopped requesting the waiver. Shame on them.

It goes way beyond, "Shame on them", Eric. When we follow the rules and have
ALL LAUNCHES made by AERO-TOW only, the tow planes are instructed to plan their
routes, so as to be in the release area at 2000 AGL As you know, Guy Buyer's
outstanding scoring program looks at Time, Position and Altitude for Start,
Finish and all Turn Points. It does NOT look at self-launches for Position and
Altitude. Somebody, usually the CD, must check this.

Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
Lake, maybe making it in;

If you don't like the performance of the ASH-26, then get another ship, but
don't use its capabilities to safely get you to a point where you use its
engine and then turn on it and blame it for not being able to dump the engine
and climb higher. You can't have it both ways, Eric.

Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you

Wrong, We were flying the ASH-25 at about 8.25 pounds per square foot wing
loading. It climbs quite well, even in a 1 knot thermal. If you think I'm
limited to airfields only, you should ask Patricia about carrying it out of a
plowed field at the Avenal contest last year.
JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...
Wrong. An unpowered ASH 26 (no E, no engine) pilot (6.7 wing loading
instead of 8.2) would either have been able to climb high enough in
the weak thermal I found; taken the 1700' agl over the airport (10 sm
out; 30:1) and pressed on over the even better fields south of Soap
Lake, maybe making it in;

If you don't like the performance of the ASH-26, then get another ship, but
don't use its capabilities to safely get you to a point where you use its
engine and then turn on it and blame it for not being able to dump the engine
and climb higher. You can't have it both ways, Eric.

I was attempting to explain how a pilot flying the same model glider
without the motor could've handled the same situation, and gotten a
better score. This was to answer your claim that the motor was what
would make it possible for me to maybe get home when a motorless
glider won't.

I don't blame the glider for anything. I'm just too lazy to take the
motor out, put in another set of bags, and find a crew that wants to
come get me if I land out.


Frankly, JJ, the biggest inequity in the contest was self-imposed: you
were flying a large, heavy ASH 25, which is difficult to retrieve, and
you were flying with a co-pilot that was handicapped. I admire you for
this, as you pretty much committed yourself to airport-only landings,
and gave up the flexibility that risking a field landing gives you

Wrong, We were flying the ASH-25 at about 8.25 pounds per square foot wing
loading. It climbs quite well, even in a 1 knot thermal. If you think I'm
limited to airfields only, you should ask Patricia about carrying it out of a
plowed field at the Avenal contest last year.

OK, I still admire you for having a handicapped pilot with you, but
not as much as before.

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

Eric Greenwell
Richland, WA (USA)

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
I don't need to look at your traces, Eric. I saw it and NK saw it also.

JJ, you've lost all touch with reality. Are you REALLY trying to argue
that your sight is to be trusted more than a sealed flight recorder? I
am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.

Tom

Tom wroteI
am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.

Thats just the problem Tom. Nobody checked the MG traces, because
self-launching wasn't allowed. This is the kind of trouble we can get into,
even if a waiver is granted, the CD wasn't instructed to check the traces.
Just JJ whining again,
JJ Sinclair

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...
Tom wroteI
am very interested in hearing how you think that Eric beat the
security features. Get a grip, man, you are slipping over the edge.

Thats just the problem Tom. Nobody checked the MG traces, because
self-launching wasn't allowed. This is the kind of trouble we can get into,
even if a waiver is granted, the CD wasn't instructed to check the traces.

Wrong again. All flight records of all contestants were checked by the
score keeper. One day he claimed that I used my engine because the
noise level exceeded some preset level in the scoring program. In
fact, the noise was caused by the location of the flight recorder near
the side window and was far less than normal engine noise. They were
convinced that I didn't use my engine when I pointed out I was going
120 kt and descending at 10 kt. All parts of the flight record above
this preset level show up as red and are obvious to the scorer. It is
very obvious, for instance, if a MG restarts in the air, before the
contest start, instead of landing an re-launching. There is really no
fooling the secure flight recorders. AFAIK all MG self-launches were
checked for launch altitude at Region 8. Beyond that, I would welcome
closer scrutiny of all contestant's flight records. Make ALL of the
flight records available to everyone. Furthermore, I think MGs should
be only permitted to enter contests with secure flight recorders with
noise sensors (contest directors ARE allowed to accept unsecure flight
recorders at regionals [6.7.3]).

You basically accused Eric and JN of breaking the rules and refused to
look at any evidence to the contrary. You represented NK as supporting
your accusation, which he refuted in a previous posting. You should
reconsider very carefully before making such unfounded accusations.

Tom

Tom,
The scoring program will *Flag* for possible penalty, any airborne use of the
engine. The scorer must evaluate each flagged item. At Ephrata 2003, the
program would flag:

1. Self-launch of motorgliders in sports class. Scorers action; OK, they are
self-launching, Not allowed by the rules, but OK, here.

2. Motor use in the local area. Scorers action; OK, if below 1000 feet and
within 1 mile of Ephrata, Not in the rules, but OK, here. (Airborne- Relight)

3. Motor use on course. Scorers action; call in the pilot and discuss. This may
terminate the flight, see if pilot declared a constructive landout in order to
get credit to the point of engine use.

You were called in for a possible type 3, use of the engine. Are you sure the
scorer checked all MG traces to see if they shut down in the release area and
not above 2000 feet? Oh, I forgot, 2300 feet, not in the rules, but OK here.
JJ Sinclair