2013 USA Competition Rules Published

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:08:41 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:
John, I appreciate your concern with making finishes safer by eliminating "coffin corners" (MC 0 at 300'), but to me you are trying to eliminate the pilot from the equation a bit too much. Fine for Sports Class beginners, perhaps, but to me this is part of racing - accurately flown final glides, or landing out to avoid damage (can't win with a broken glider).



Just because you can finish at 50' with a line, doesn't make it smart - since now you only get distance points for a rolling finish, if you are on that MC0 and barely making it, you still have no incentive to push it. If you cant cross the line and fly a normal pattern (either cross at 500' and blend into traffic, or if alone, push down and cross at Vne and pull up - yes, because it's fun and gives all those working or watching on the ground something to see), the decision process is still there. Crossing the line at 50ft and 60 knots get you nothing but distance points and a warning from the CD for dangerous flying!



The point is, if the finish is "cross the runway then fly a safe pattern", then what I have to manage is getting across the runway high and/or fast enough for the existing conditions for a safe pattern and landing.



You don't like it. Fine. I do, but I'm not making the rules, so I'll finish whatever way is legal and safe.



See you at the races!



Cheers,



Kirk

66

Kirk: Though in fact the numbers show many crashes involving 50 feet, 50 knots, and no ideas, I don't actually push this issue, because I do think adequate pilot education can solve it. OK, I think I'm smart enough to do a rolling finish in this situation.

IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FINISH. IT'S NOT ABOUT PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO FLY PATTERNS. It's about the marginal final glide that the low finish sets up. We give 1000 points on one side of a barbed wire fence and 600 points on the other side of that fence.

Here, all of us really are in a quandary. If you want to be competitive, you have to be prepared to end up at 50 knots 50 feet over the fence, and to make last-minute landouts from a straight in 53 knot 45+1:1 glide, ducking into fields from 300 feet or less when it does not work out. The numbers bear out that this is extraordinarily difficult, for pilots well past "sports class beginners." These crashes happen at nationals and worlds too.

Beginners are not the problem. Sports class beginners land out long before they get to the coffin corner. The problem is you and me, experienced pilots who have read all the great stories about pulling up to pop over the last tree line, and who know this is a neccessary part of a competitive pilots' toolkit if the rules allow it. Historically, many pilots like you and me have mishandled this situation.

Maybe you feel you have the skills to do it. I know I don't, even though I've studied this intensively (!), and I carefully scope all the fields near the airport. The end of a long contest flight with marginal final glide is a time that I know I am bad at split second risk my life or lose this contest decisions.

My view is simple: this is the sort of thing that if we all studied it, we would volunteer for. I agree not to beat you by flying in the clouds if you agree not to beat me by fly in the clouds. We'll agree to remove the artificial horizons so we know we're keeping the deal. I agree not beat you by landing out, racing back at 90 mph, reassemble and start again, if you agree not to beat me the same way. We'll agree to abide by that rule.

And, I agree not to beat you by popping over the fence at 10 feet after a harrowing glide over the quarry, if you agree not to beat me the same way.

The rules are, really, just a gentleman's agreement between pilots of this sort. And our rules process in the end does not keep things that the majority of pilots don't end up feeling this way about. If, having tried it both ways, the majority of pilots really wants to go back to the old days, then so it shall be.

Now, do you really want to do it? Make no mistake about it, the top 10 at nationals will indeed push the glide to the last field before the airport, will glide over fences at 10 feet, and those not willing to do it will lose. Do you really want to go back to making that a central part of the skills we measure, and are you willing to clean up the occasional mess that results?

John Cochrane

On Thursday, March 7, 2013 9:33:12 AM UTC-8, wrote:
On Thursday, March 7, 2013 11:08:41 AM UTC-6, kirk.stant wrote:

John, I appreciate your concern with making finishes safer by eliminating "coffin corners" (MC 0 at 300'), but to me you are trying to eliminate the pilot from the equation a bit too much. Fine for Sports Class beginners, perhaps, but to me this is part of racing - accurately flown final glides, or landing out to avoid damage (can't win with a broken glider).







Just because you can finish at 50' with a line, doesn't make it smart - since now you only get distance points for a rolling finish, if you are on that MC0 and barely making it, you still have no incentive to push it. If you cant cross the line and fly a normal pattern (either cross at 500' and blend into traffic, or if alone, push down and cross at Vne and pull up - yes, because it's fun and gives all those working or watching on the ground something to see), the decision process is still there. Crossing the line at 50ft and 60 knots get you nothing but distance points and a warning from the CD for dangerous flying!







The point is, if the finish is "cross the runway then fly a safe pattern", then what I have to manage is getting across the runway high and/or fast enough for the existing conditions for a safe pattern and landing.







You don't like it. Fine. I do, but I'm not making the rules, so I'll finish whatever way is legal and safe.







See you at the races!







Cheers,







Kirk



66



Kirk: Though in fact the numbers show many crashes involving 50 feet, 50 knots, and no ideas, I don't actually push this issue, because I do think adequate pilot education can solve it. OK, I think I'm smart enough to do a rolling finish in this situation.



IT'S NOT ABOUT THE FINISH. IT'S NOT ABOUT PEOPLE'S ABILITY TO FLY PATTERNS. It's about the marginal final glide that the low finish sets up. We give 1000 points on one side of a barbed wire fence and 600 points on the other side of that fence.



Here, all of us really are in a quandary. If you want to be competitive, you have to be prepared to end up at 50 knots 50 feet over the fence, and to make last-minute landouts from a straight in 53 knot 45+1:1 glide, ducking into fields from 300 feet or less when it does not work out. The numbers bear out that this is extraordinarily difficult, for pilots well past "sports class beginners." These crashes happen at nationals and worlds too.



Beginners are not the problem. Sports class beginners land out long before they get to the coffin corner. The problem is you and me, experienced pilots who have read all the great stories about pulling up to pop over the last tree line, and who know this is a neccessary part of a competitive pilots' toolkit if the rules allow it. Historically, many pilots like you and me have mishandled this situation.



Maybe you feel you have the skills to do it. I know I don't, even though I've studied this intensively (!), and I carefully scope all the fields near the airport. The end of a long contest flight with marginal final glide is a time that I know I am bad at split second risk my life or lose this contest decisions.



My view is simple: this is the sort of thing that if we all studied it, we would volunteer for. I agree not to beat you by flying in the clouds if you agree not to beat me by fly in the clouds. We'll agree to remove the artificial horizons so we know we're keeping the deal. I agree not beat you by landing out, racing back at 90 mph, reassemble and start again, if you agree not to beat me the same way. We'll agree to abide by that rule.



And, I agree not to beat you by popping over the fence at 10 feet after a harrowing glide over the quarry, if you agree not to beat me the same way.



The rules are, really, just a gentleman's agreement between pilots of this sort. And our rules process in the end does not keep things that the majority of pilots don't end up feeling this way about. If, having tried it both ways, the majority of pilots really wants to go back to the old days, then so it shall be.



Now, do you really want to do it? Make no mistake about it, the top 10 at nationals will indeed push the glide to the last field before the airport, will glide over fences at 10 feet, and those not willing to do it will lose. Do you really want to go back to making that a central part of the skills we measure, and are you willing to clean up the occasional mess that results?



John Cochrane

Well said.

Thanks John,

Craig

OK, it's time to jump in here. Wish I didn't have to, but here goes. First, John, show me all the "many" and "lots of one mile short", "crash after crash" accidents caused by the finish line here in the US. Contest and date please. I know of several that you cite that were from dehydration and other factors, like thermalling too low, etc, not the line. As you and many other people know, dehydration has been the cause of many accidents and dumb stunts over the years. I propose we make a rule to do away with dehydration. Then lets make a rule to prevent flying below say 500 feet above any obstacle or persons within 1/2 mile, to avoid a "clear violation of AIM procedures" Your words in quotes. Yeehaa Mifflin! Lets just go through the AIM and make our rules conform more closely. John, you brought it up.

Let's cut thermalling off at a "comfortable" altitude of, say, 700 feet. That would have saved several lives over the years, contests and otherwise. Once you get below 700 feet, you're scored as a landout. They call it pattern altitude for a reason, right? Or, let's make a rule outlawing mid-airs. Lord knows we've had a few of those in recent years, so wouldn't you agree that it's worth having a rule or two? Lets say no thermalling within 500 feet of another competitor. That would have prevent some recent collisions.

We could go on with all these examples, but it's only purpose would be to show what we already know; this sport, as with most high adventure sports, can be dangerous if we're not careful. If we chase every potential problem area with a solution, none of us will want to compete because it will be boring. The cylinder, and it's AS%$%$NE penalties, have chipped away at the fun, adventure and skill factor in a sport that is very demanding by design.. How far do we go before we legislate it to death? Do we only let the most experienced compete at the National level? I always go back to the timeless sayings; "AVIATION IN ITSELF IS NOT INHERANTLY DANGEROUS. BUT TO AN EVEN GREATER EXTENT THAN THE SEA IT IS TERRIBLY UNFORGIVING OF ANY CARELESSNESS, INCAPACITY OR NEGLECT." And another; IF ONE TOOK NO CHANCES, ONE WOULD NOT FLY AT ALL. SAFETY LIES IN THE JUDGEMENT OF THE CHANCES ONE TAKES. So it is with our sport. We can accept that and try to educate new competitors on the dangers and solutions to problems, or we can further kill our sport with solutions that are looking for a problem. Problems that can easily be overstated and overregulated by the use of words like "many", "crash after crash", etc, etc.

John, you are clearly great with numbers, but if I looked at the safety numbers of this, or any other high adventure sport, I would go home and play checkers against myself. I would like to have an equation that would show when we totally kill the fun in this sport with rules, and how close are we to doing that?

I know the "what would you do?" question is coming. Let me say, just to be clear, I would not be satisfied with even one single fatality in this great sport per year either. Lets find the cause of each accident, or incident and educate, educate, educate.

Respectfully,

MK