Dehydration

Three monkeys. No one will see the near misses at the cylinder wall, so
they won't get discussed. Just like the near misses in thermals and at
turnpoints don't get much discussion, far from the gaze of the peanut
gallery. The finish cylinder is a tool. It has its applications. But a
cure all it isn't.

JJ, I would suggest that maintaining or slowly bleeding speed to the IP
creates exactly the same situation you've described as unacceptable in
the finish gate, except that rather than being the exception, it will
become the rule. Gliders finishing from all points on the compass,
proceeding at high speed to the pattern IP, with head on traffic
exponentially more common and pilot intent more random. We will manage
it, just like we manage the finish gate, until someone doesn't think
things through, or forgets to drink or eat or pee or exercise or use
the radio or switch glasses...

2g pull. That's what Reichmann recommends for thermal entry. That's
what I see most guys pull on course during dolphin flying. God, what
happens in that last 10-minute run for the finish? The only difference
I can discern is the length of the witness list! C'mon JJ, we do this
stuff all the time. Here in the East, we do it even closer to the
ground for hours at a time. We often fly hundreds of miles seldom
getting higher than 50 feet above the tree tops and manage to complete
180's at the end of the ridge with other gliders in front and behind.

I think you are over arguing your point. Tout the cylinder for its
virtues. Spend some time wrapping some regulation of traffic into the
cylinder formula. And help make the line a safer environment. It's not
going to go away quite yet, despite your best efforts. So how do we
improve safety at the line? Instead of dismissing ideas as irrelevant,
let's discuss them.

OC, You never did answer my question, "How many contests have you flown
using the finish cylinder?"
Your skepticism leads me to believe you havent flown that many. I know
you flew it at Montague, anywhere else? How about giving it a fair try
before condeming it?
JJ

JJ, I'm thinking back. Half a dozen sanctioned contests? We use the
cylinder at M-ASA for our Club tasks as well. You miss my point
though... It's not condemnation of the finish cylinder as a concept.
Whatever the rules, I'll follow them and use them to my best advantage.
It's an assessment of the forethought that has been applied to its
implementation. Many of the concerns you aptly apply to the finish line
can be transferred to the finish cylinder. While it answers some
concerns, it ignores others and raises still more. In my opinion, the
finish gate is most dangerous when sailplanes of different performances
and speed ranges are finishing together. This is why the cylinder is an
appropriate solution for the sports class. Under such circumstances,
there can be significant differences in the patterns pilots must fly
after the finish. And the cylinder raises greatest concerns during TATs
and ASTs, especially in weak or blue conditions, when gaggling is most
likely.

I've talked about the heads down aspect of the cylinder, the de facto
reduction of finish line width during ASTs, the reduced separation of
high and low speed traffic and the variables we're likely to encounter
once we enter the cylinder and proceed to the IP.

I keep asking for some regulation at the cylinder that will make it
easier for me to anticipate likely hazards. And the constant response
is density. I've flown the 1-mile "turn cylinder" for several seasons
now, and I've come to the conclusion that it does little to alleviate
congestion. There is some improvement under certain conditions, but by
and large there's typcally only one "best" way to round the turnpoint
at any given moment, and that's where sailplanes operate.

It comes down to this: I understand the finish gate. I know its hazards
and can anticipate them. The cylinder presents unaddressed variables.
And unlike some pilots, I prefer the advantages of going into a
hazardous environment with as much knowledge as I can. Right now I am
admitting my ignorance of how best to manage the cylinder. And I'm not
taking much confidence in the recommendations of those who purport to
understand its dynamics.

Racing is not inherently safe. And experience leaves me dubious about
rules changes that are predicated on improving the inherent safety of
any aspect of the sport. The density argument rings untrue. There is
clearly some value in elimination of head on traffic, but this can be
addressed in other ways as well, many of which have been offered but
not thoroughly explored because the cylinder is assumed to trump them
all.

You have to give me some credit here. I'm not addressing this as a
blunt-skull only. Sports Class... use the cylinder. MAT... the cylinder
might be appropriate... for the CD and his advisors to decide. Single
class of experienced pilots flying AST or TAT (Nationals), the line
serves very well. Perhaps even better. In either case, the safety of
cylinder versus line is determined solely by the knowledge and
practices of its users. I'd like to be knowledgable in both. If nothing
else, you've turned me pragmatist, JJ. The line serves me fine, but I
know I'll be presented with the cylinder more and more. So let's get on
with the business of putting some regulation on it.

wrote:
OC, You never did answer my question, "How many contests have you
flown
using the finish cylinder?"
Your skepticism leads me to believe you havent flown that many. I
know
you flew it at Montague, anywhere else? How about giving it a fair
try
before condeming it?
JJ

wrote:

I keep asking for some regulation at the cylinder that will make it
easier for me to anticipate likely hazards. And the constant response
is density. I've flown the 1-mile "turn cylinder" for several seasons
now, and I've come to the conclusion that it does little to alleviate
congestion.

Morning Chris,
I think the problems in traffic separation can be solved with good
radio procedures like those we have adopted at Montague. The County
insists we use 122.8 for T/O and landing, so we tell all finishers to
call on 123.3 at 10 miles out, get the winds to see which way we are
landing and then switch to 122.8. They are instructed to call 4 miles
from the center, then in the gate (1 mile on DME) with direction and
condition, ie, JJ....In the gate.......from the S/W............high.
The finisher has been listening for 10 miles and knows who's in front
of him and their condition (low man gets priority). I have done this in
a contest with 80 ships at Reese. Charlie had similar procedures in
place and I never had even the hint of a problem.
I take that back, at Montague we did have a guy with a bad radio that
landed against traffic, thankfully we have a 200 foot wide rudway and
both pilots stayed to the right. His radio problems were a continuing
thing and I felt he should have dealt with it. He should have known his
radio wasn't working when he got no reply and heard nobody talking. We
gave him a hand-held for the remainder of the contest.
JJ

Ah, much better. Now we're going in the right direction. Is there some
way we can raise these from site specific to general practice? And in
the process, refine them to address conceptual (versus reported)
problems with the cylinder. And then do the same sort of thing for the
line. Let's make them both as safe as possible, then measure their
relative worth under the variety of finish scenarios we see. Your
contests will use the cylinder exclusively. That's fine. Others will
prefer the line. Each will attract its adherents, but in the long run,
there's no reason they can't co-exist, especially if each in its own
way contributes to improvements in traffic management at the finish (I
won't say safety in this case, because being safe is largely dependent
on individual practice and compliance with accepted procedures).

The good news, JJ, is that you're at least partly right. Maybe all
right. ;-) Time will tell. And it needn't be based on casuality
figures... just pilot preference.

Cheers,

Chris OC

If we were to have 4 cylinders (only one of which would be in use any given
day), such that the cylinder's edge was more or less down the centerline of
the runway (one on each side); or perpendicular to the runway (one at each
end), then, other than altitude, the spectator appeal is about the same as
with a line.

(We ought to change the subject of this thread.)


--
Bob
bobgreenblattATmsnDOTcom --fix this before responding