Analyzing US Competition Flights

Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic, fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable, enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft. limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it appears to already be part of the US rules ( 300 ft (anywhere on course?) is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft. if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft. estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom. Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

On Mar 14, 5:41*pm, Sean Fidler wrote:
John,

HARD DECK:

Sorry for being obscure. The hard deck is a lower limit not an upper
limit. I'm not in favor of an upper limit. Cloud flying is just not a
problem, and wave, thermal wave, etc. are great fun when you can get
them. We need some sense that something is a problem, now, before
passing complex and draconian rules.

The concept is this: there is a set of lower altitude limits, quoted
in MSL, given out in SUA files. They are roughly 500 to 1000 feet
AGL, At Ionia, 1200' MSL might do over the whole task area, and could
just be announced without needing a file. In mountain sites, these are
set by looking at the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out.
Altitudes can be higher over undlandable terrain to discourage low
flight there.

When you hit the hard deck altitude, you're counted as landing out.
From there on in, the race is over -- land out, scratch your way back
up and fly home, it's up to you. Do the safe thing, but forget about
contest points, the race is over for you. And no more of these stall/
spin crashes from thermalling at 200 feet. (Those ARE a problem.)

The navy top gun school does this: If you fall below 10,000', you're
counted as crashing into the ground. But they're a bunch of wussies,
we real pilots keep racing down until we hit the dirt.

The last time the concept was discussed at an SRA meeting the vote was
I believe 39 to 1 against. But, hey, we used to think the rolling
finish one foot over the airport fence was a good idea too. Maybe some
sharp CD will ask for this by waiver and we can see how it works out
(hint hint)

John Cochrane

Really, Really, Really speaking for myself and not the RC this time!
(Last time I counted noses, my fellow RC members were pretty solidly
in the 39 and very tired of hearing about it.)

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 7:18:52 PM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:

The last time the concept was discussed at an SRA meeting the vote was
I believe 39 to 1 against. But, hey, we used to think the rolling
finish one foot over the airport fence was a good idea too. Maybe some
sharp CD will ask for this by waiver and we can see how it works out
(hint hint)

John Cochrane


Make it 40:1 against. It's just another example of a highly complex solution to a non-problem.

Make it 40:1 against. * *It's just another example of a highly complex solution to a non-problem.

It's a simple solution -- at x feet MSL, you've landed out. You need
to read the NTSB reports and look at some traces if you think that
landout damage, stall spin accidents, etc. are not a major problem,
and that low altitude thermaling is not part of it.

But I give up for now -- no point in starting a major kerfuffle that
isn't going anywhere.

John Cochrane

Sean,

I'm going to have to assume that you haven't flown much in competitions and/or you've never been much out of the midwest. Even a cursory review of log files from contests I've actually flown in shows huge variations in altitude (cloudbase and or top of lift) in a given day. Mifflin day 3 2010 is a geat example. Impossible to get above 4500 at the start with weak climbs and low clouds. Hard to get away from the start cylinder. 20 miles NW 5kts to 8,000 feet and riproaring conditions. Forecast was for moderate lift to 5,000. Now tell me exactly how/when the CD sets the ceiling and how throwing away 3,000 or more feet of usable climb (assuming the ceiling was based on the forecast) makes for better or fairer racing? Or, what if the forecast was for 5,000 and the actual cloudbase was 4,000?

Or, what about the last day of the Fairfield regional in 2010 (or was it 2009). 8/8ths high overcast with decent blue (no Cu) lift to 3500. Intrepid CD who spent too much time in the UK declares it a cracking good day and sends us out. Surprisingly, it works! Somewhere along the way the local utility fires up a supplementary gas fired generation plant and guys get a single climb to 6,000. We shouldn't have even been able to stay up according to the forecast, yet we got what many of us will remember as one of the most enjoyable days in a contest ever. Again, what's the ceiling that day?

It's just a bad idea. Period

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 6:41:15 PM UTC-4, Sean Fidler wrote:
John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic, fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable, enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft. limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it appears to already be part of the US rules ( 300 ft (anywhere on course?) is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft. if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft. estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom. Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane

Errrr... "Hard Deck" refers to minimum altitude, not cloud clearance...


"Sean Fidler" wrote in message
news:32846365.1740.1331764875489.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynll40...
John,

HARD DECK: I fully agree with the hard deck idea based on recent AH panic,
fear, etc. A hard deck would be simple, safe, comprehensive, measurable,
enforceable and absolute. It would ensure a fair parcel of air to work
within for all pilots. I fully understand that nobody knows where the
clouds really are at any given time, and that this level varies throughout
the day and task area. But with a hard deck and no AH it is extremely
unlikely that clouds will be entered in contests, resulting in any
advantage, assuming the weather predictions are relatively accurate (simply
error low on hard deck top, greater challenge). The AH rule alone, with
today’s technology, certainly no longer prevents pilots truly motivated to
cheat via cloud flying. This is FOR SURE! The hard deck keeps the cheater
out of the clouds and can be measured and enforced.

It is interesting that some fight passionately to preventing AH technology
in the cockpit (cloud flying) while seemingly being unconcerned about
contest pilots regularly flying within 500 ft. of cloud base (no support for
a hard deck). These acts are systemic clear violations of a FAA regulation
broken by almost all contest pilots every time we fly with clouds. They
seem to mainly want it “the way it has been” (No AH) and have no interest in
other changes, no matter logic. If we want no cloud flying, shouldn’t we be
using this FAA regulation as a buffer zone to ensure (by the legal 500 ft.
limit) that clouds are not entered?

Can a contest pilot be protested for flying along at cloud base? They are
breaking federal law and therefore the SSA contest rules (obey the FAA
regulations, etc), are they not? Just wondering… Why is this common (and
clearly illegal) act never protested but AH’s are hissed at like voodoo
dolls?

A hard bottom and hard top would be a real solution to these problems. In
Reno this was discussed by OSTIV in terms of finishing penalties but it
appears to already be part of the US rules ( 300 ft (anywhere on course?)
is now or soon will be a land-out). I say why not simply make this 500 ft.
if the safety cushion we want to encourage is indeed critical? A 500 ft.
estimate of cloud base can also be made creating a hard deck top and bottom.
Problem solved. Or is this not a problem because (like the AH ban) it’s
what has been going on for 20+ years?

Sean

On Wednesday, March 14, 2012 10:02:51 AM UTC-4, John Cochrane wrote:
Two points on this evolving thread:

Sean: If you do get files and a program that can analyze them in real
time, searching for close call midairs would be useful as well as
suspcious circling well above the rest of the pack. Also, extremely
low flying. OK, nobody wants to put in the "hard deck" I've been
suggesting for years, but at least we could watch those 200' saves and
think about them.

Weather in the cockpit: This is a different kind of question than
artificial horizons. It's a competitive issue not a safety issue. The
RC has kept the ban on weather data in the cockpit only for cost
reasons -- didn't want everyone to feel they needed another toy to
compete -- and because we poll it every two years or so and the vast
majority say they want to keep the ban.

It's pretty clear that like GPS, costs will continue to come down,
most pilots will eventually have some sort of weather feed in their
recreational flying, and a ban will become anachronistic. There are
also some obvious potential safety advantages to having weather data.
(For the moment it strikes me the radar loop is useful when storms are
around. I'd really like to have the 1 km visible satellite loop, but
haven't found any reasonably priced system that gets that.)

When a solid majority starts answering poll questions with "let us
bring weather data along for contests," I don't think there will be
much reason to oppose it. We could think about allowing some kinds of
equipment and not others -- yes to aviation models such as Garmin, no
to unrestricted satellite based internet -- or class specific
limitations -- yes in open and 18 where cost is no object already, no
in club class.

That's also a signal to manufacturers. If however manufacturers came
up with weather screens at reasonable extra cost, I don't think they
would be banned forever.

So, if you want it, just start making noise.

Disclaimer: personal opinions here, not speaking for the RC.

John Cochrane