Seniors Contest

Final line is this Marc...you cannot legislate good judgement....period. If
you don't believe it then just go drive around in your car for awhile where
there have already been put into place many laws in an attempt to do so.

It is not the pilots that are conscientious and cautious that are the
problem....no matter what the rules are they will do the right thing. There
will always be those that are poor decision makers in a pinch. I wish that
an instructor somewhere would have pointed this out to them but now that
they have their license they can demonstrate to the world their
inadequacies.

Casey

Kilo Charlie wrote:
Final line is this Marc...you cannot legislate good judgement....period. If
you don't believe it then just go drive around in your car for awhile where
there have already been put into place many laws in an attempt to do so.

It is not the pilots that are conscientious and cautious that are the
problem....no matter what the rules are they will do the right thing. There
will always be those that are poor decision makers in a pinch. I wish that
an instructor somewhere would have pointed this out to them but now that
they have their license they can demonstrate to the world their
inadequacies.

Honestly, it doesn't bother me in the least what sort of finish you use,
if I'm not participating. But, if I am participating, I find finish
gates incredibly unsafe, even if I personally do my more leisurely 1000+
foot finishes. I still have to dodge fast moving gliders as I get
lower, particularly with MATs. But, as soon as someone important
(rather than someone like me) gets killed as the direct result of a
finish gate, I'm sure the rules committee will be all over it...

Marc

I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc. Your
basic premise is that the gate finish is unsafe. I disagree and feel that
it is safer than the alternatives presented to date.

Re your "testosterone" idea....yup you're correct.....I do enjoy watching
the ground rush by and my crew enjoys it too along with the spectators that
show up. We have made an already poor spectator sport into a truly horrible
one with some of these changes. I'm not looking to make it a Red Bull death
defying race but honestly think that it is the one single time in the race
that is nice to watch. Now if it were less safe than the other finishes I
would not argue to use it but as I said it is at least as safe. I challenge
you to present hard facts to counter that. If I'm wrong about that being
liked by the spectators then maybe you can explain why they can't keep
enough copies of UK Smokin' in production to satisfy all the orders.

Like you said.....you guys that are worried about the safety issues with the
current rules can by all means have your own races with each competitor
having their own separate start cylinder and the finish being a 2 mile 2000'
AGL minimum. Now THAT would be safe....but I won't be participating.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Kilo Charlie wrote:
I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc. Your
basic premise is that the gate finish is unsafe. I disagree and feel that
it is safer than the alternatives presented to date.

We can argue about whether the recent Seniors accident was or was not a
gate mishap, I could go either way. But, the notion that cylinder
finishes are less safe than gate finishes seems to be unique to you and
some of your friends...

Marc

"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message
news:WBNXd.22088$FM3.15711@fed1read02...
I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc. Your
basic premise is that the gate finish is unsafe. I disagree and feel that
it is safer than the alternatives presented to date.

Re your "testosterone" idea....yup you're correct.....I do enjoy watching
the ground rush by and my crew enjoys it too along with the spectators
that show up. We have made an already poor spectator sport into a truly
horrible one with some of these changes. Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix


Casey,

I'm in complete agreement. I don't fly contests, likely never will, but I
sure *used* to enjoy the contest finishes. What a shame they destroyed the
best part of contests for the spectators.

bumper
ZZ
Minden

Kilo Charlie wrote:

I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc.

How long have you been in the sport? At least one person has died
finishing with the conventional gate (Cal City), and there have been
many other accidents and very close calls.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I've been flying for 34 years Eric and racing for 12. I see that you are
ranked 232 and I am 121....does that make me better able to judge racing
rules?! Let's talk about the facts and not get into a ****ing match about
experience.

I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others know
about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Kilo Charlie wrote:
I've been flying for 34 years Eric and racing for 12. I see that you are
ranked 232 and I am 121....does that make me better able to judge racing
rules?! Let's talk about the facts and not get into a ****ing match about
experience.

I'm ranked 44, does that mean I win the ****ing match? 8^)

I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others know
about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

Do you think the recent Seniors accident was gate related, and if not,
why not?

Marc

Kilo Charlie wrote:
I've been flying for 34 years Eric and racing for 12. I see that you are
ranked 232 and I am 121....does that make me better able to judge racing
rules?! Let's talk about the facts and not get into a ****ing match about
experience.

My experience was not mentioned in the post - I was wondering about
yours. I still make no claim about my experience. I was responding to
your comment:

I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the gate finish Marc.

I first assumed you had been racing for a while, but it then seemed
unlikely, since you weren't aware of finish gate problems. I'm surprised
you've raced for 12 years without witnessing or at least hearing about
accidents and close calls.

I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others know
about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

I've seen several gear up landings, at least once with pilots going
head-on at each other because one finished backwards, some slow speed
pullups leading to a scary low turn to final a whisker away from
cartwheeling, a pilot landing short in a rock-filled field because the
"rolling finish" didn't make it to the pavement. There's more that will
come to me after a bit, but those are some that I've witnessed.
Thankfully, no bad injuries or fatalities.

I'm with Marc - I think I'm safer with the new high finish cylinders
than the traditional ground-based gate. It was a thrill bombing through
it at 50 feet off the ground, but I'm over that now.

--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others
know
about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

A small sample of serious finish accidents.

1.
NTSB Identification: FTW94LA237 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 16, 1994 in LITTLEFIELD, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/12/1995
Aircraft: SCHWEIZER SGS 1-26E, registration: N33915
Injuries: 1 Serious.
WITNESSES SAID THE PILOT COMPLETED A GLIDER COMPETITION LOW AND SLOW AT
THE FINISH. THE PILOT TURNED LEFT ONTO THE DOWNWIND LEG, FOLLOWED BY A
STEEP LEFT TURN AND NOSE PITCH DOWN. IMPACT OCCURRED NOSE LOW STILL
TURNING LEFT.

2.
NTSB Identification: FTW86FRG30 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 32434.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, August 04, 1986 in UVALDE, TX
Aircraft: SCHLEICHER ASW-20, registration: N20TS
Injuries: 1 Serious.
ACFT WAS COMPETING IN THE NATL SOARING CHAMPIONSHIPS AND HAD JUST
CROSSED THE FINISH LINE AT 50' AGL AND 85 KNS A/S WHEN IT ENTERED A
MANEUVER TO REVERSE DIRECTION AND CLIMB TO PATTERN ALT FOR LANDING.
DURING THE TURN THE ACFT STALLED AND STRUCK A POWER LINE DURING THE
SUBSEQUENT DESCENT. AFTER IMPACT, THE ACFT SLID INTO A VEHICLE. THE PLT
MAY HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED BY OTHER ACFT OPERATING IN THE PATTERN.

3.
NTSB Identification: LAX90FA310 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 45117.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 02, 1990 in CALIFORNIA CITY, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/30/1992
Aircraft: Schempp-Hirth NIMBUS-2C, registration: N39285
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
THE PILOT WAS PARTICIPATING IN A ROUND-ROBIN SOARING CHAMPIONSHIP
CONTEST. WHEN THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT 2 MILES EAST OF THE FINISH LINE THE
PILOT RADIOED THAT HE WAS INBOUND. WHEN THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT 1/4 OF A
MILE EAST OF THE FINISH LINE WITNESSES OBSERVED ITS AIRSPEED APPEARED
TO BE LESS THAN NORMAL. AFTER CROSSING THE FINISH LINE THE GLIDER
ENTERED INTO A CLIMBING RIGHT TURN. WHEN THE GLIDER COMPLETED ABOUT A
180 DEGREE TURN, IT STALLED AND ENTERED INTO A SPIN. A GLIDER PILOT WHO
OVERTOOK THE ACCIDENT GLIDER REPORTED THAT THE ACCIDENT PILOT BEGAN TO
PREMATURELY DISPERSE HIS WATER BALLAST ABOUT 10 MILES EAST OF THE
AIRPORT FINISH LINE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE PILOT'S IMPROPER DECISION TO EXECUTE THE RAPID CLIMBING TURN
MANEUVER AT AN INSUFFICIENT AIRSPEED. CONTRIBUTING TO THIS ACCIDENT WAS
THE PREMATURE DUMPING OF THE GLIDER'S WATER BALLAST.

4.
NYC00LA171
On June 19, 2000, about 1630 Eastern Daylight Time, a Schempp-Hirth,
Ventus 2CM motorglider, N800PF, was substantially damaged while
maneuvering to land at the Warren-Sugarbush Airport, Warren, Vermont.
The certificated commercial pilot was seriously injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for
the personal local flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, the pilot was
participating in a glider race at the airport. The race was to be
conducted without motorized power and the motorglider was towed to
altitude.

According to the pilot, after crossing the finish line at the end of
the race, he received a radio call from the airport that the winds had
changed direction and landings were being conducted on Runway 22. The
pilot executed a 180-degree turn and entered the traffic pattern for
the runway. While turning base to final, the pilot was unable to stop
the turn with full opposite aileron due to turbulence. As the
motorglider descended, the pilot was able to level the wings, but was
90 degrees to the runway and "into the trees." The pilot raised the
nose of the glider to decrease airspeed, and the motorglider stalled,
impacting trees short of the runway.

The winds reported by an airport located about 13 miles east of the
accident, at 1651, were from 350 degrees at 7 knots.



Two more, not contest participants, but fatalities doing contest
finishes.

5.
NYC01FA071
HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On January 28, 2001, a Schempp-Hirth, Discus CS glider, N814CU, was
substantially damaged while attempting to land at Wurtsboro Airport,
Wurtsboro, New York. The certificated private pilot was fatally
injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal
flight. No flight plan had been filed for the local flight conducted
under 14 CFR Part 91.
......
The pilot performed a high-speed pass down runway 23, and either
touched the runway momentarily, or was very close to it. He then pulled
up to about 500 feet agl, and entered a left crosswind, followed by a
downwind for runway 23. The traffic pattern appeared normal to the
observers.

While on base leg, the glider was observed to enter a left turn prior
to having reached a position from which the turn to final would
normally have been made. The left turn increased in bank angle, the
nose dropped and the glider disappeared from view. Some of the
witnesses said the glider appeared slow and was in a nose up attitude.
The bank angle was estimated to be in excess of 60 degrees, and the
nose down attitude at least 45 degrees.
....

6. This was on the rest day of 15 meter nationals

NTSB Identification: FTW01LA179.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, August 12, 2001 in Uvalde, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 2/20/2002
Aircraft: PDPS PZL-Bielsko SZD-55-1, registration: N55VW
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The commercial pilot was completing the third leg of a soaring 300 km
triangle. The glider owner, who was in contact with the pilot via
radio, reported that the pilot stated he had the field in sight
approximately 8 miles from the airport. The glider entered the traffic
pattern for runway 15 and was turning base when the owner observed it
enter a spin. A witness reported that the glider banked, "appeared to
have stalled, and spiraled counter-clockwise" in a nose low attitude
into the ground. Another witness, located approximately a block from
the accident site, stated that she "looked up and saw the glider
spinning counter clockwise very fast and falling nose first." The
glider impacted the ground and came to rest approximately 1/4 mile from
the approach end of runway. The pilot had accumulated approximately 270
total glider flight hours and 5 flight hours in the same make and model
as the accident aircraft. No pre-impact anomalies were noted with the
glider during the examination.

(There was a low pass here too, though not mentioned in the official
report. I guess pilots are smart enough not to talk too much to the FAA
and NTSB!)


John Cochrane
BB