Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.

This is indeed a simple and better alternative. It eliminates all this worry about pilots thermaling low to get over the edge, as well as last minute pull ups. (A pull up to get over the hard deck won't work, as you will run out of energy.)

We don't have it, because you see the uproar that a simple finish cylinder is causing. Mention the words "hard deck" -- even just a doughnut at 500 feet AGL, 4 miles around the airport -- and there will be RAS apoplexy. I brought it up once, and the rest of the RC pointed out wisely that if I wanted to go get tarred and feathered that was fine, but they weren't going to join me.

Don't do big pull ups at the finish!

Once, approaching Hobbs at about 70 knots -- I was on a pretty marginal glide to the cylinder -- about 1.1 miles out a glider rose up right in front of me. He had passed me below at high speed, somehow missed the glider above him (me). Staring at the airport on final glide is common. At the moment of the pull up, I couldn't see him -- I'm above -- and he couldn't see me -- now behind his tail.

When you do a big pull up, there is no way to see who is above and behind you!

John Cochrane

Personally, I kinda like this 4 mile hard deck idea. It is simple to understand and solves a real problem. The idea of pull ups at 1 mile and 700 ft AGL is a little terrifying. The hard deck would certainly prevent that potential behavior.

On the other hand, (devil's advocate), the high points risk associated with flying out over the hard deck with low energy would result in the same "save it" circling just outside of the 4 miles hard deck "shelf" instead of 1 mile finish circle. The good news is the gliders would be slightly higher at 4 miles.

Would this hard deck be 500 AGL (penalty penalty) or 700AGL (finish height)?

Sean

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:53:46 AM UTC-5, wrote:
A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.



This is indeed a simple and better alternative. It eliminates all this worry about pilots thermaling low to get over the edge, as well as last minute pull ups. (A pull up to get over the hard deck won't work, as you will run out of energy.)



We don't have it, because you see the uproar that a simple finish cylinder is causing. Mention the words "hard deck" -- even just a doughnut at 500 feet AGL, 4 miles around the airport -- and there will be RAS apoplexy. I brought it up once, and the rest of the RC pointed out wisely that if I wanted to go get tarred and feathered that was fine, but they weren't going to join me.



Don't do big pull ups at the finish!



Once, approaching Hobbs at about 70 knots -- I was on a pretty marginal glide to the cylinder -- about 1.1 miles out a glider rose up right in front of me. He had passed me below at high speed, somehow missed the glider above him (me). Staring at the airport on final glide is common. At the moment of the pull up, I couldn't see him -- I'm above -- and he couldn't see me -- now behind his tail.



When you do a big pull up, there is no way to see who is above and behind you!



John Cochrane

A hard deck in a 4 mile radius doesn't resolve the issue, only moves the
problem further away from the airport. The only solution is a hard deck
throughout the task area - but wait... what about mountain sites, that's
OK, we will come up with a separate rule for that when we get there .

Cheers,
Luke

PS: I am not advocating a hard deck throughout the task area.. I am
just trying to demonstrate what happens when we move the responsibility
of flight safety from the PIC to the RC...



On 01/21/2014 11:50 AM, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Personally, I kinda like this 4 mile hard deck idea. It is simple to understand and solves a real problem. The idea of pull ups at 1 mile and 700 ft AGL is a little terrifying. The hard deck would certainly prevent that potential behavior.

On the other hand, (devil's advocate), the high points risk associated with flying out over the hard deck with low energy would result in the same "save it" circling just outside of the 4 miles hard deck "shelf" instead of 1 mile finish circle. The good news is the gliders would be slightly higher at 4 miles.

Would this hard deck be 500 AGL (penalty penalty) or 700AGL (finish height)?

Sean

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 8:53:46 AM UTC-5, wrote:
A hard deck within - say - 4 miles from the finish line is a simple alternative. Get below finish height and you're scored as a land-out.



This is indeed a simple and better alternative. It eliminates all this worry about pilots thermaling low to get over the edge, as well as last minute pull ups. (A pull up to get over the hard deck won't work, as you will run out of energy.)



We don't have it, because you see the uproar that a simple finish cylinder is causing. Mention the words "hard deck" -- even just a doughnut at 500 feet AGL, 4 miles around the airport -- and there will be RAS apoplexy. I brought it up once, and the rest of the RC pointed out wisely that if I wanted to go get tarred and feathered that was fine, but they weren't going to join me.



Don't do big pull ups at the finish!



Once, approaching Hobbs at about 70 knots -- I was on a pretty marginal glide to the cylinder -- about 1.1 miles out a glider rose up right in front of me. He had passed me below at high speed, somehow missed the glider above him (me). Staring at the airport on final glide is common. At the moment of the pull up, I couldn't see him -- I'm above -- and he couldn't see me -- now behind his tail.



When you do a big pull up, there is no way to see who is above and behind you!



John Cochrane

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 1:46:33 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
A hard deck in a 4 mile radius doesn't resolve the issue, only moves the

problem further away from the airport.


I'm with John and Sean on this one. Simple, no need to calculate points and easy for contest management to set realistic and acceptable limits for their site. The risks associated with thermaling attempts low down are mitigated.

For the height calculation at 4 miles out, pick a glide angle that covers the gliders flying in a class, e.g. Height lost at nominal value 35:1 glide angle over 4 miles, round number 600 ft. Add minimum circuit height of let's say 600ft and the number is 1,200 ft for a 4 mile finish ring. Change the numbers up or down by changing the glide angle component and/or the minimum circuit height values, it's a contest management decision.

This is pretty much what we do for a weather safety finish, once you hit the ring the race is over and points are in the bag, no need to take any more risks and plenty of height to make a decision. If the issue is safety, what's stopping us going ahead other than the rules committee's reluctance to have their feet held to the fire. I have removed my shoes and socks, light the burners.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 12:46:33 PM UTC-6, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
A hard deck in a 4 mile radius doesn't resolve the issue, only moves the
problem further away from the airport. The only solution is a hard deck
throughout the task area - but wait... what about mountain sites, that's
OK, we will come up with a separate rule for that when we get there .

Cheers,

Luke


PS: I am not advocating a hard deck throughout the task area.. I am
just trying to demonstrate what happens when we move the responsibility
of flight safety from the PIC to the RC...



I don't want to start this pointless argument, but let's at least get the facts straight.

A hard deck sits over the valley floor. Mountains stick out. A hard deck is defined by SUA files, so varying valley floor is not a problem. There is no technical problem in using hard deck for mountain sites. Yes, the hard deck does nothing about crashing in to mountains or low thermaling over ridges. You'll have to do some PIC work.

A hard deck does the opposite of "move the responsibility of flight safety from the PIC to the RC." Under current rules, when you're at 500 feet, the RC says loudly "come on, thermal away, we give you hundreds of points if you pull it off." Under a hard deck, at 500 feet the RC says "we are not going to bias your decision either way. Thermal out, land, do what's safest. You are PIC. You get the same points no matter what you do."

How you can possibly construe this to be taking "responsibility for flight safety" is beyond me. Think just a little bit.

Again, I do not want to start a hard deck war. Pilots have spoken, and do not want it. But let us not pass around pure silliness on the subject. A hard deck is straightforward to implement in ridge and mountain sites. A hard deck does not tell the pilot what to do, it merely removes the current big point bonus for one decision.

Choose not to have a hard deck because you like winning and losing races at 300 feet, not because of false facts and rumors.

John Cochrane