700 agl / 1 mile finish

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:39:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:


By and large, yes. But not always. Download Mifflin traces and watch fun glides through the gap. Mc 0 + 50' through the gap is not for the faint of heart.

You say that as though it was commonplace. It wasn't.

T8

On Friday, May 24, 2013 2:10:41 PM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:39:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:





By and large, yes. But not always. Download Mifflin traces and watch fun glides through the gap. Mc 0 + 50' through the gap is not for the faint of heart.



You say that as though it was commonplace. It wasn't.



T8

And never has been. Surely if there were that many, someone would have crashed on final glide by now. There should be about 23 years of contests to look for one. Let us be the PIC and make our own choices, please.

Mark

Let us be the PIC and make our own choices, please.

Mark

This is pure BS, which we have been over time and time again, and by now should have sunk in.

You are always the PIC. No rule ever forces you to do anything. Get that in your head now.

Rule 9.3: "Judgments affecting flight safety are the sole responsibility of the pilot in command. This includes (though is not limited to) any decision to fly into weather, over rough terrain or hazardous areas, and the evaluation of the safety of any potential landing site" Got that?

The finish merely moves up what was always there. It used to be 1 inch over the fence = speed points, 1 inch under the fence = distance points. We simply moved that up 500 feet and it's the same for everybody. This should not be that hard to understand.

The finish rule REMOVES a previously strong incentive. Previously, the rules said, "C'mon, try it. 45:1 and pull back to make it over the fence. You get 400 points if you can make it work." Now the rules say, "You're the PIC. Do what's safe and sensible. If you can sneak back to the airport and that's the safe thing to do, do it. If landing here is the safe thing to do, do that. If thermaling a bit in this last crappy thermal is the right thing to do, do that too. We're not giving you points one way or the other. You're the PIC."

The rules never ever told anyone what to do. The old rules said you were PIC and trusted you to make the good PIC decision even with 400 points dangling in your face. The new rules trust you to make the good PIC decision, and remove the 400 points dangling in your face. The temptations to squeak in to the airport and not deal with a landout will still be there, and you'd better be ready to make hard decisions fast.

To reiterate points made thousands of times, but apparently not sinking in, we remove big temptations like that all over the rules. Why do we weigh? To remove the temptation to fly above max gross. Of course, no good PIC would do that right? Why do we ban second chances after landouts? To remove the temptation for 100 mph retrieves, slapdash assemblies. Of course, no good PIC would fall to that temptation, right? Why do we have harsh penalties for flying in illegal airspace? No good PIC would do that, right?

In none of these rules is the pilot EVER told what he must do. You ALWAYS are making your own choices. In these rules, an unintended strong temptation to do something stupid has been removed, in a way that is fair because it is absolutely the same for everybody.

John Cochrane

Is this the primary purpose of the finish rule?

"The finish rule REMOVES a previously strong incentive. Previously, the rules said, "C'mon, try it. 45:1 and pull back to make it over the fence."

I think we can all agree this is UNSAFE flying. We already have a rule to address unsafe flying.

10.9.1.4 Pilots must pay particular attention to safety during the process of finishing, landing, and rolling to a stop. A pilot whose
finish, pattern, landing, or rollout is deemed unsafe by the CD is subject to a penalty for unsafe operation.

The maximum penalty is disqualification.

Was the cylinder with raised finish created because our unsafe flying rule wasn't being enforced?

Seems to me possible disqualification REMOVES a strong point incentive of just squeaking it over the fence.

Do we really need to make more rules because others are unenforced?

Sean Franke

The finish ring is a fine. The relatively recent addition of the distance points only clause if 1 foot below some imagined point in space is the problem. It violates the policy of a graduated penalty as applied by most rules in soaring.

Is the pilot who is 1 foot under the finish rings imagined point in space really several hundred points more dangerous? The problem is not typically related to gaming the energy but on those days with long, slow and perfectly safe arrivals with a few feet less altitude than needed to finish for speed points. Currently the penalty applied indicates the pilot who finishes at 499 feet rather than 500 has done some egregiously unsafe flying which he clearly has not.

The strategy being encouraged is to stop and climb at some point even it is directly on the final glide path very close to the airport at a tenuously safe altitude rather than take a several hundred point penalty for being 1 foot lower than some imaged point in space. A graduated penalty similar to turnpoints is a much less punitive approach to this problem.

My hats off to the Rules Committee members as they work hard on these issues and take a good deal of grief on occasion. As for contest flying generally the old saw about learning more about cross country soaring in an early regionals than a year of flying on your own still rings true, plus contests are a lot of fun.

John Seaborn

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, John Seaborn wrote:
The finish ring is a fine. The relatively recent addition of the distance points only clause if 1 foot below some imagined point in space is the problem. It violates the policy of a graduated penalty as applied by most rules in soaring.



Is the pilot who is 1 foot under the finish rings imagined point in space really several hundred points more dangerous? The problem is not typically related to gaming the energy but on those days with long, slow and perfectly safe arrivals with a few feet less altitude than needed to finish for speed points. Currently the penalty applied indicates the pilot who finishes at 499 feet rather than 500 has done some egregiously unsafe flying which he clearly has not.



The strategy being encouraged is to stop and climb at some point even it is directly on the final glide path very close to the airport at a tenuously safe altitude rather than take a several hundred point penalty for being 1 foot lower than some imaged point in space. A graduated penalty similar to turnpoints is a much less punitive approach to this problem.



My hats off to the Rules Committee members as they work hard on these issues and take a good deal of grief on occasion. As for contest flying generally the old saw about learning more about cross country soaring in an early regionals than a year of flying on your own still rings true, plus contests are a lot of fun.



John Seaborn

Just for comparison sake:

1. Turnpoint
a) inside turnpoint radius - good
b) within 1 mile of turnpoint radius - graduated penalty
c) miss by more than one mile - landout

2. Gate (line) finish
a) cross finish line - good
b) fall short of finish line but on airport - good
c) fall short of finish line but off airport - landout

3. Cylinder finish
a) cross boundary at or above floor - good
b) up to 200' below floor - graduated penalty
c) below 200' below floor - landout

On Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, John Seaborn wrote:
The finish ring is a fine. The relatively recent addition of the distance points only clause if 1 foot below some imagined point in space is the problem. It violates the policy of a graduated penalty as applied by most rules in soaring.



Is the pilot who is 1 foot under the finish rings imagined point in space really several hundred points more dangerous? The problem is not typically related to gaming the energy but on those days with long, slow and perfectly safe arrivals with a few feet less altitude than needed to finish for speed points. Currently the penalty applied indicates the pilot who finishes at 499 feet rather than 500 has done some egregiously unsafe flying which he clearly has not.



The strategy being encouraged is to stop and climb at some point even it is directly on the final glide path very close to the airport at a tenuously safe altitude rather than take a several hundred point penalty for being 1 foot lower than some imaged point in space. A graduated penalty similar to turnpoints is a much less punitive approach to this problem.



My hats off to the Rules Committee members as they work hard on these issues and take a good deal of grief on occasion. As for contest flying generally the old saw about learning more about cross country soaring in an early regionals than a year of flying on your own still rings true, plus contests are a lot of fun.



John Seaborn

Just for comparison sake:

1. Turnpoint
a) inside turnpoint radius - good
b) within 1 mile of turnpoint radius - graduated penalty
c) miss by more than one mile - landout

2. Gate (line) finish
a) cross finish line - good
b) fall short of finish line but on airport - good, possible time adjustment
c) fall short of finish line but off airport - landout

3. Cylinder finish
a) cross boundary at or above floor - good
b) up to 200' below floor - graduated penalty
c) below 200' below floor - landout

On May 25, 2:17*pm, "John Godfrey (QT)"
wrote:
On Saturday, May 25, 2013 11:49:38 AM UTC-4, John Seaborn wrote:
The finish ring is a fine. The relatively recent addition of the distance points only clause if 1 foot below some imagined point in space is the problem. It violates the policy of a graduated penalty as applied by most rules in soaring.

Is the pilot who is 1 foot under the finish rings imagined point in space really several hundred points more dangerous? The problem is not typically related to gaming the energy but on those days with long, slow and perfectly safe arrivals with a few feet less altitude than needed to finish for speed points. Currently the penalty applied indicates the pilot who finishes at 499 feet rather than 500 has done some egregiously unsafe flying which he clearly has not.

The strategy being encouraged is to stop and climb at some point even it is directly on the final glide path very close to the airport at a tenuously safe altitude rather than take a several hundred point penalty for being 1 foot lower than some imaged point in space. A graduated penalty similar to turnpoints is a much less punitive approach to this problem.

My hats off to the Rules Committee members as they work hard on these issues and take a good deal of grief on occasion. As for contest flying generally the old saw about learning more about cross country soaring in an early regionals than a year of flying on your own still rings true, plus contests are a lot of fun.

John Seaborn

Just for comparison sake:

1. *Turnpoint
* * a) inside turnpoint radius - good
* * b) within 1 mile of turnpoint radius - graduated penalty
* * c) miss by more than one mile - landout

2. *Gate (line) finish
* * a) cross finish line - good
* * b) fall short of finish line but on airport - good, possible time adjustment
* * c) fall short of finish line but off airport - landout

3. *Cylinder finish
* * a) cross boundary at or above floor - good
* * b) up to 200' below floor - graduated penalty
* * c) below 200' below floor - landout

Graduated penalty should be all the way to the ground!

3 (c) should be deleted. I always come back above the minimum height
(not because of rules, but because I don't have any replacement parts
for my body). If one of these days I find myself scoring a landout due
to unforeseen major sink but make the 1 mile at 499 feet I will be
totally ****ed.

An unintended consequence of this rule is some thermaling at 500 feet
a mile out to avoid landout. Someone might think I can make the
airport so why not try it, right. I guess next year we will see
another rule to address that until someone comes up with another way
to "avoid" a landout score.

If one does not have safety in his/her brain no rule is going to help.
BB please understand this!

If you personally want to come at 700 AGL then do it. I suspect you do
but since you don't want everyone else to get ahead of you by 200 feet
you want to make everyone come at 700 AGL. This is what this rule is
all about. I don't care I bring the 200 feet extra every day and that
is my choice I don't want to force other pilots to do the same.

Regards,
Andrzej