Motorgliders (long)

I still feel that your argument of a MG pilot heading off into the
boonies with no landing options is exactly on par with the non-MG
pilot doing the same -- stupid.

As for this proposal, it looks good on the outside, but there's a
major flaw regarding risk avoidance here.

What do I tell my insurance company after picking a fantastic looking
field, landing, and hitting a single hidden obstacle that damages the
glider? What do I tell my fellow pilots as their insurance premiums
go up?

The engine is a tool to be used during field selection to attempt to
avoid validating that selection.

A couple weeks ago, my engine battery was flat when I arrived at the
airport. So I took a tow and flew a nice XC, knowing that I had no
engine to back me up. The day got weak, and I got low. On two
occasions, I would have popped the engine due to my height over a
landing site. In both cases, at least a minute after I would have
been climbing away under power, I found that low save and got away.
So I would have gotten distance not speed points had this been a
contest flight.

If you really think there's a *problem* with the MG pilot having an
unfair advantage by flying over unlandable terrain, I have a solution.
Let's all agree that a contestant may ask the CD to examine the trace
of another competitor due to a percieved 'unsafe' action. A panel of
judges will play back the trace and the pilot will justify any
questionable actions. Procedures here could be similar to how we
currently lodge a formal protest.

This could even be turned into a learning experience with both parties
being required to give a 2 minute talk at the next day's plot's
meeting about the incident, no matter which way the outcome was. I'm
sure one or both parties may have learned something worth sharing with
all the contestants, and this would have as positive an effect as our
current 'safety talk'.

Tom Serkowski
ASH-26E (5Z)

(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message ...

Under my proposal, the MG would face the exact SAME decision that un-powered
sailplane pilots must make. i.e, "If I start this shaky glide, I may be forced
to land in a field, or worse." He would be in the same situation that the rest
of us are facing, " I may try a shaky glide, but if I don't find something, I
MUST land to get my distance points. I can land at a designated airfield and
get distance points + 25 bonus points OR I can start this shaky glide, but if
it doesn't work, I will have to find a place to land. If I crank up the
Put-Put, I will get ZERO points for all my work today."
The penalty for engine use could be a percentage of the daily winners score,
say 30%, but I think it must be substantial, or taking a chance and pulling it
off, with the engine as a back-up will continue to be an attractive option in
the minds of some MG pilots.

JJ Sinclair

Tom, Tom, Tom,
I don't know where to start with all that.

What do I tell my insurance company after picking a fantastic looking
field, landing, and hitting a single hidden obstacle that damages the
glider? What do I tell my fellow pilots as their insurance premiums
go up?

You tell them (insurance company & fellow pilots) the SAME thing the
non-motored pilot tels then. I screwed up! My proposal doesn't MAKE you land in
a field, land at an airport, start your engine if you wish, my proposal ONLY
makes the score fair and EQUAL for all contestants.

Let's all agree that a contestant may ask the CD to examine the trace
of another competitor due to a percieved 'unsafe' action. A panel of
judges will play back the trace and the pilot will justify any

I can't believe you think something like that would work. The people that run
our contests are busy folks, every night they must deal with a whole bunch of
problems. XX busted the start altitude, what's his penalty?, lets look at the
trace. XA started his engine, get his trace up here, NK & JJ haven't beed heard
from, it's 8:00 PM, Lets launch Minden Air. The computer called this a 1000
point day, won't be when,and if we ever find the guys that haven't reported in
yet. And so it goes, every night. And NOW you would like to hold a Mini Grand
Jury at each pilots meeting? Who's the Judge going to be? The CD, he doesn't
have that authority, That's why we have very specific RULES and the CD in in
charge of following them (To the letter)



JJ Sinclair

Some recent posts indicate that I was just taking *Cheep-Shots* at
motorgliders. There has been some intense debating and some attempts at humor,
But let me say, I fully support motorgliders in US competition. I voted to
allow MG's in 18 meter, Open and Sports classes (Regionals & Nationals) This
position was clearly stated in my letter to the rules committee, that started
this thread, some hundred posters back.

My proposed rules change would force both type of competitors to make the SAME
soaring decisions. Lets say, Eric (ASH-26) and JJ (ASH-25) are over the last
turn point, some 30 miles from home. We both have about 2500 feet and its 6:00
PM. If the day isn't dead, its dying fast. What do we do? We can land at the
turn point and get distance points + 25 bonus. We can start a glide and hope we
hit a bump out there, somewhere??? If we get lucky, we both make it home. No
difference, we both get speed points. If we don't get lucky, I must pick a
field and land, I have no choice. Eric may pick a field and land also. We will
both get distance points to our field, no difference. Eric has an option, he
can start his engine and fly home. My proposal deals with how do we fairly deal
with Eric's CHOICE to start his engine. The options a

1. Eric gets distance points to engine start ( present rule)

2. Eric gets distance points to the last turn point. I don't agree , because
there is no reason for Eric to NOT try this unsuccessful glide. Get a bump and
make it home, don't get a bump, and get scored at the last turn point anyway.
Why not give it a try?

3. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine. It was HIS decision to
attempt the glide, He had exactly the SAME DECISION that I had. He knew the
consequences of his intended act. In my humble opinion, My proposed rule change
makes BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again.
:)
JJ Sinclair

In article ,
says...

My proposed rules change would force both type of competitors to make the SAME
soaring decisions. Lets say, Eric (ASH-26) and JJ (ASH-25) are over the last
turn point, some 30 miles from home. We both have about 2500 feet and its 6:00
If we don't get lucky, I must pick a
field and land, I have no choice. Eric may pick a field and land also. We will
both get distance points to our field, no difference. Eric has an option, he
can start his engine and fly home. My proposal deals with how do we fairly deal
with Eric's CHOICE to start his engine. The options a

1. Eric gets distance points to engine start ( present rule)

2. Eric gets distance points to the last turn point. I don't agree , because
there is no reason for Eric to NOT try this unsuccessful glide. Get a bump and
make it home, don't get a bump, and get scored at the last turn point anyway.
Why not give it a try?

3. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine. It was HIS decision to
attempt the glide, He had exactly the SAME DECISION that I had. He knew the
consequences of his intended act. In my humble opinion, My proposed rule change
makes BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again.

JJ's post recognizes implicitly what we all know: the glider pilot that
is willing to land out has a competitive advantage over the pilot that
isn't willing to do that. He thinks it is unfair a motorized sailplane
can have this advantage without risking the inconvenience of landing. He
ignores the competitive disadvantages of having this option: a higher
wing loading in weak conditions (1.4 pounds extra for my glider), the
need to start the motor 500 feet higher than he would otherwise end a
"low save" attempt, and the extra 180 pounds (in the fuselage) to lug
out of a field if he lands (pilot's choice or failed engine start).

Let me suggest a fourth option:

4. Eric gets ZERO points for starting his engine, JJ gets ZERO points
for landing out. The pilots that landed at an airport (motorized or
motorless) get the usual points.

Besides making BOTH of us EXACTLY the SAME, again, this rule will appeal
to the many pilots that aren't willing to land out, suffering a
competitive disadvantage. This might actually increase participation in
our contests, as more pilots realize they don't have to take extra risks
just to have a chance of doing well in a contest.

In fact, this rule would continue what I believe is a trend to reduce
land outs in contests:

- about 30 years ago, we prohibited relights from a landing off the
contest airport

- about 15 years ago, we allowed aero retrieves from airports

- about 5 years ago, we began giving bonus points for landing at an
airport

My proposal is similar to substantially increasing the "airport bonus".
Potentially, it could increase contest safety as the "airport bonus" is
intended to; if it does, it will also reduce insurance claims, which
might reduce premiums.

--
-------
Eric Greenwell USA