![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The 5km finish cylinder procedure with 200m min agl which I am used to has
no traffic problems at all. -- Bert Willing ASW20 "TW" "Fred Mueller" a écrit dans le message de news: ... 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 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Fred Mueller wrote:
I'm kinda new at this, New enough that you haven't used a finish line with the ground at the bottom? If you haven't, it might be harder to understand how it works out in practice. 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, I don't see this happening in the contests I've flown with large, high cylinder finishes. All the pilots that had a good finish have been able to use the standard pattern to land. Pilots that did not have a good finish often used non-standard patterns, such as rolling finishes or no downwind leg, and so on. this is especially bad during a MAT or when different classes are finishing from different directions. My experience is the low finish line is worse in these conditions, because the pilots are NOT being "funneled" (brought along a small angle sector) to a precise point: they arriving_ spread out more or less along the line from many different directins, including 180 degrees apart, with some hooking the gate and doing a very non-standard pattern entry. I've even seen 180s after a finish, with the glider landing back into the oncoming finishers. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Eric Greenwell wrote:
Fred Mueller wrote: I'm kinda new at this, New enough that you haven't used a finish line with the ground at the bottom? If you haven't, it might be harder to understand how it works out in practice. Not that new. Fred |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]() My experience is th low finish line is worse in these conditions, because the pilots are NOT being "funneled" (brought along a small angle sector) to a precise point: they arriving_ spread out more or less along the line from many different directins, including 180 degrees apart, with some hooking the gate and doing a very non-standard pattern entry. I've even seen 180s after a finish, with the glider landing back into the oncoming finishers. -- Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly Eric Greenwell Washington State USA I'm still on the fence on this one, but here's my "philosophy" on rules. I think the primary purpose of the rules should be to protect me from you (the imperial you - not any of the current posters :-), not to protect me from myself. With that in mind, I feel like mid-air collision avoidance should be the primary purpose of the finishing routine, whether it be gate or cylinder. Given my very selfish goal, which finishing routine does a better job? I have to say that in my first 15 years of racing using a high speed gate, I really never had any close calls. I found the situational awareness to be relatively manageable given good radio ettiquette and a reaonable level of professionalism among the other competitors. I have a lot less experience with the cylinder, but my recollection from the few that I've flown was a slightly increased nervousness about people approaching from numerous directions, resulting in more slumped shoulders (ie. trying to make myself feel like a small target). So, which finishing routine does a better job of facilitating the avoidance of a midair? Erik Mann LS8-18 (P3) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
2005 Region 7 Contest | Paul Remde | Soaring | 0 | August 13th 04 03:48 AM |
Survival and Demise Kit; Contest Points | Jim Culp | Soaring | 1 | June 21st 04 04:35 AM |
USA Double Seater Contest | Thomas Knauff | Soaring | 1 | April 13th 04 05:24 PM |
30th Annual CCSC Soaring Contest | Mario Crosina | Soaring | 0 | March 17th 04 06:31 AM |
2003 Air Sailing Contest pre-report synopsis | Jim Price | Soaring | 0 | July 10th 03 10:19 PM |