Seniors Contest

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

Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are examples of
poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not related to
judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even contest
flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if there
were a midair at the gate.

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Kilo Charlie wrote:
Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are examples of
poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not related to
judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even contest
flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

So, stalling and spinning moments after what are clearly, in several
cases (including the most recent), botched gate finishes (i.e.,
insufficient energy) has absolutely nothing to do with the use of a
gate, while stalling and spinning at 600 feet while trying to sneak over
the edge of a finish cylinder, proves that cylinder finishes are
dangerous?

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if there
were a midair at the gate.

You've got it! I can choose not to finish at 50 feet, but I have no
control over the potential for a midair. I have had trouble several
times with having to land between gliders crossing my base leg low and
fast on their way to the finish gate. There was also the time someone
cut me off at the gate, by hooking it 100 feet in front of me. Maybe I
missed the finish calls, or maybe they didn't make them, it really
doesn't matter. Poor judgment and bad luck may well equal two dead
contest pilots one of these days.

The bottom line is this, whoever is fastest with a 50 foot gate, is also
going to be fastest with a 500 foot cylinder. So, why do some insist
upon trying to force use of a "fun" finish procedure that quite a few of
us find dangerous? As far as I'm concerned, if even one participant
objects, a gate shouldn't be used (and, yes, I have objected, and have
been overruled). If everyone agrees, have a good time...

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Yeah, what a silly thing to do...

Marc

I agree with Casey... but I'd rephrase it in a less politically correct
way:

There are some pilots who train for a racing environment and many who
don't. No surprise then that the latter are incompetent in some of the
basic skills of racing. Like taking off with water, centering thermals,
gaggle etiquette, and finishing. As finishes are highly regulated (a
requirement for safety), one way to short cut ignorance is to change
them into something we can all do. LCD. The inertia of ignorance and
lassitude will always overcome skill and enthusiasm (sadly, by shear
force of numbers).

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished by
skillful pilots exercising good judgement. There IS unbounded risk in
any maneuver attempted by pilots who take the environment too lightly.
If you don't want to improve your skills, why compete? That's the point
of it, after all. To compare yourself to others... to enter into a
rivalry. When you meet someone better, you tip your hat to his or her
skills and accomplishments, then redouble your efforts to improve your
own. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, stop competing and
start attending soaring camps. They're fun too.

And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed to
do that. If I thought that the finish line was inherently dangerous,
I'd be up there with you. God knows I do my level best to keep a good
distance between me and the prestart gaggle -- whenever I can. Now if
you want to improve safety, put some effort into that!

Kilo Charlie wrote:
Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are
examples of
poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not
related to
judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even
contest
flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if
there
were a midair at the gate.

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

I'm kinda new at this, but here's my two cents worth. There is an
advantage to a finish line that we don't see with a cylinder finish.
Everyone is funneled through a fairly precise point so we know where to
look for traffic and we have a fairly good idea how their pattern to
land will look. In a cylinder finish, all bets are off and every type
of pattern entry known to man from every possible direction is
accomplished along with often unpredictable results, this is especially
bad during a MAT or when different classes are finishing from different
directions. There are ways to solve this but it makes things more
complicated than a simple finish line.

FM


remove nospam to reply

wrote:
I agree with Casey... but I'd rephrase it in a less politically correct
way:

There are some pilots who train for a racing environment and many who
don't. No surprise then that the latter are incompetent in some of the
basic skills of racing. Like taking off with water, centering thermals,
gaggle etiquette, and finishing. As finishes are highly regulated (a
requirement for safety), one way to short cut ignorance is to change
them into something we can all do. LCD. The inertia of ignorance and
lassitude will always overcome skill and enthusiasm (sadly, by shear
force of numbers).

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished by
skillful pilots exercising good judgement. There IS unbounded risk in
any maneuver attempted by pilots who take the environment too lightly.
If you don't want to improve your skills, why compete? That's the point
of it, after all. To compare yourself to others... to enter into a
rivalry. When you meet someone better, you tip your hat to his or her
skills and accomplishments, then redouble your efforts to improve your
own. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, stop competing and
start attending soaring camps. They're fun too.

And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed to
do that. If I thought that the finish line was inherently dangerous,
I'd be up there with you. God knows I do my level best to keep a good
distance between me and the prestart gaggle -- whenever I can. Now if
you want to improve safety, put some effort into that!

Kilo Charlie wrote:

Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are

examples of

poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not

related to

judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even

contest

flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if

there

were a midair at the gate.

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

I am a fairly new contest pilot, flying in sport's class in the
northeast.
If I had a competitive glider I might consider standard/15m class.

So take my comments as someone who has never had to do a gate finish
for real, but has considered them, practiced them and does consider
them inherently dangerous.

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished
by
skillful pilots exercising good judgement.

I consider them to be inherently dangerous because the solution for
the fastest time pushes the pilot towards a very dangerous flying
situation.

Flying at best speed to fly for the last thermal all the way to 50agl
at the finish line. For my Grob102, if I was in a 4 knot thermal
that's 79 knots.
Also it's a 25/1 glide ration so at 1 nm away I am at 290 feet, 2nm at
540 feet. This seems pretty dangerous to me. If I hit sink, then I am
landing wherever the sink hit me, without any chance for picking a
field, flying a pattern, etc. Even if don't hit sink, I am still only
set up to land straight ahead past the finish line.

So most pilots add some safety margin (in the form of extra potential
energy), they take the thermal higher than they should (from a speed
perspective). As they get closer to the finish line, they convert the
potential energy to speed. Then re-convert the speed to height for a
'normal' pattern.

The problem is that you score higher (faster) for a lower safety
margin.

Why not just set the minimum required safety margin for all pilots ?
The required finish altitude is just that, a minimum safety margin for
all contest pilots. The rules are saying "if you reduce the safety
margin less than this, you will not get a better score than this."

And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed
to
do that.

But the rules should not provide a scoring benefit to the pilots who
decide to reduce the safety margin. I don't want to be thinking "hey,
if I really push this final glide I might make up that 20point
advantage my competitor got yesterday."

Todd Smith
3S