Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

Hank Nixon wrote:
I'm unclear by what BZ describes whether he is suggesting raising the top(1000 ft finish with 500 ft landout threshold, or lowering the bottom. Clearly the latter is less safe.

I am not suggesting that the RC lower the bottom but rather raise the top of the “penalty zone”. As I read the RC notes concerning proposed rule changes on the SSA website, it says in part:
Guidance Revised: Setting Minimum Finish Height
This amends the guidance to highlight the need to consider additional factors

The notes suggest to me that the CD has great latitude on setting the MFH depending on the competition site and other considerations. It defines the MFH as “the minimum height for a penalty-free finish.” The notes continue, “Because a valid finish (with a very small penalty) may be up to 200’ below the MFH (to accommodate instrumentation errors),it is this lower height that should be considered when setting the MFH. Thus in the absence of
landability, traffic, or other concerns, the MFH should normally be 700’ AGL at a mile, which
avoids creating a big step in points (landout rather than speed finish) at 300 ft AGL leaves even
the lowest valid finisher with 500’ for a pattern and landing.

I read that is the minimum altitude to avoid a land out is “normally 500’ with a “penalty zone” of 200’ more. I am simply suggesting that the rule could be improved by adding 300’ to the fixed 200’ as a “penalty zone”. That would preserve the accommodation for instrument error and add an additional measure of safety. It would also make the accumulation of penalty points for a slightly low finish more gradual. My suggestion of a 500’ “penalty zone” was just an example. The RC could pick another number if it were more efficacious. The bigger it is the more gradual the accumulation of penalty points would be. The effect is that for a small error in arrival height there is less incentive to attempt a low save. Finding oneself 200’ lower that intended is more likely than being 500’ lower.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:41:35 PM UTC-8, Bravo Zulu wrote:

"I read that is the minimum altitude to avoid a land out is “normally 500’ with a “penalty zone” of 200’ more. I am simply suggesting that the rule could be improved by adding 300’ to the fixed 200’ as a “penalty zone”. That would preserve the accommodation for instrument error and add an additional measure of safety. It would also make the accumulation of penalty points for a slightly low finish more gradual. My suggestion of a 500’ “penalty zone” was just an example. The RC could pick another number if it were more efficacious. The bigger it is the more gradual the accumulation of penalty points would be. The effect is that for a small error in arrival height there is less incentive to attempt a low save. Finding oneself 200’ lower that intended is more likely than being 500’ lower."


Deep breath. Lots to discuss here.

In the interest of exposing some of the richness of the issues for those of you who are interested enough to dig into the actual details that inform these decisions, here we go.

There are three main objectives for setting rules around finish height and then a bunch of considerations. In rough order of priority:

1) The top objective is to make sure that pilots set up enough altitude buffer to get home without hitting the dirt under most scenarios of unexpected sink, headwind, etc. A decent MFH does this pretty well so long as it includes a penalty that costs more than the speed points lost from stopping to climb in a weak thermal. (Otherwise pilots gain points by ignoring thermals below the break-even climb rate for the penalty gradient). This is the highest order pilot decision - setting up the glide is at the top of the final glide decision chain. The penalty is fundamental - without a penalty structure MFH is practically meaningless. If you want to have all pilots set a 1000' arrival you need around 100-200 points per 1000' at stake to create an incentive in favor of climbing in a weak thermal rather than pressing on.

2) A related, but separate, second objective is to not create a points temptation to go for the finish cylinder at a height from which you cannot safely make the airport - instead of picking a decent field while you have a little altitude. This is mostly a "glide gone wrong" or "glide that was never right" scenario and is a totally different pilot decision from #1. This minimum safe altitude is, as has been pointed out, around 400-500' a mile out, depending on the airport configuration. Therefore, the penalty for 500' or below needs to be around 400 points to get rid of the points incentive to press on. That means you need to spread 400 points of penalty over the difference between MFH and 500 feet. That's 0.8 points per foot for a MFH of 1000'. If you set a 700' MFH you need to use 2.0 points per foot and if you set a 501' MFH it's 400 points per foot.

3) A third objective is to not encourage pilots to thermal low. This objective is subordinate to the other two in part because it conflicts with the other two and because it's pretty clear that having everyone finish at zero feet is not a good solution to not having people thermal low. Any MFH with a penalty will yield some situations where a pilot would prefer no penalty to any penalty and will try to climb up to get out of the penalty zone. The old rule, BTW, also had this feature only with fewer points at stake. It is not clear how many pilots would reject a climb to avoid a 50 or 100 point penalty but would take the same climb when the penalty is 400 points, maybe some, but experience indicates that many pilots would take a climb at 500' for to save a small number of points.

Then there are additional considerations that shape the final solution. People hate complexity so having a variable penalty based on MFH was set aside as was restricting the MFH to 1000' because some sites need MFH lower mostly to accommodate ridge tasks. One to two points per foot was viewed by many pilots as draconian small misses so a more gentle penalty was put in place for the first 200'.

After all these additional considerations you are left with basically no room for further graduation of the penalty for MFH700' - and a pretty steep gradient even for MFH=1000'.

Also worth pointing out, the old rule only addressed the first objective, not the second or third. The new rule addresses the first and second, but not the third. Adding a 500' hard deck for 5+ miles around the finish (either to the current rule or some steeply graduated variation) would address the first two plus mitigate the third quite a bit because you'd push the problem out so far that any pilot who is facing it is already in a landout situation. Not sure the pilot community is supportive of a hard deck, even a small one around the finish, but I'd be curious to know if it's viewed as worth it in order to reduce the low thermalling temptation.

9B

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 5:17:10 PM UTC-8, wrote:

Also worth pointing out, the old rule only addressed the first objective, not the second or third. The new rule addresses the first and second, but not the third. Adding a 500' hard deck for 5+ miles around the finish (either to the current rule or some steeply graduated variation) would address the first two plus mitigate the third quite a bit because you'd push the problem out so far that any pilot who is facing it is already in a landout situation. Not sure the pilot community is supportive of a hard deck, even a small one around the finish, but I'd be curious to know if it's viewed as worth it in order to reduce the low thermalling temptation.


A correction - the 5 mi/500' hard deck would not necessarily require a steeply graduated penalty above 500'. You can allow a modest penalty gradient for the entire distance between 500' and MFH, not just the first 200'.

You probably want the hard deck out at least 5 miles so even the most optimistic pilot who reaches the top edge of the deck will already know (s)he's not making the airport.

9B

Unfortunately the rules committee has failed to reverse a very unpopular rule change. It was clear by the overwhelming negative vote at 15M nats that the pilots don't like it.

Why not make a simple rule that gives a penalty for a finish lower than the official finish height and leave the rest alone.

How about this

1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.

You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.

This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
How about this

1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.

You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.

This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.

Hi Tim,

Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.

Andy

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

How about this



1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.



You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.



This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.



Hi Tim,



Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like.. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.



Andy

Andy,

You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.

Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.

If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.

Tim

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:



How about this







1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.







You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.







This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.







Hi Tim,







Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.







Andy



Andy,



You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.



Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.



If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.



Tim

agreed, and I agree with what hank said about it getting complicated with people getting set up to do their pattern after arriving at something above pattern altitude.

I personally like the idea of a line still, with the possibility of a rolling finish. i think in principle, you can make it onto the field in a safe manner even if you don't necessarily have enough to make a *full* pattern, but it's like the rolling stones say about getting what you want...

I do think it's egregious that you could be "landed out" even if you make it onto the field in a safe manner.

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:28:02 AM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.

Your proposal does mean that a pilot at, say 300' and 3 miles has 175 points to gain (depending on ground effect and length of the runway) for pressing on to try to cross the cylinder at 0-50' and making a straight in versus landing in a field while some sort of orderly approach and landing is possible. Read the 1-26 nationals report from last year for a description of how it works.

To be clear - there are a number of pilots who argue that finishing below pattern height should earn a heavy penalty, up to a zero for the day, because they create a hazard not just for themselves but for others when they do things like cut other gliders off in the pattern. Yes, there have been multiple complaints on this issue this year. Maybe that falls under the unsafe flying rule - but CDs don't generally want to be in that position - they argue for a firm definition of what's too low.

And there we are.

Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task.

Tim:

You're missing a basic point. When a finish cylinder is in effect, the task ends at the top of the finish cylinder, not at the home airport. "Making it home" does not mean "completing the task."

If you take off at the home airport and miss the start cylinder or start time, you do not get credit for completing the task, even though you took off at the same airport as everyone else and went around the same turnpoints. You may "feel" you should get credit, but you don't.

That's like saying you want credit for finishing a running race because, though you didn't go through the finish line with everyone else, you did make it to the locker room after the race.

Pilots may "feel" this way. I'm sure some pilots "felt" this way when rules were changed that you could not use your takeoff time rather than start time if you missed the gate. Sorry. The race is from start cylinder after start gate opens, through turnpoint cylinders, and to the finish cylinder. The start and finish cylinders have a maximum and minimum altitudes. That's the task, and where you land is pretty irrelevant to having completed the task.

Other pilots may "feel" that if they stopped in a half not rag to make it home at the finish height, it's unfair that some guy willing to bust his glider over the oil derrecks can still get speed points for floating in and pulling up over the fence.

Remember, all points are relative! To every pilot who gets ahead by squeaking in a low final glide for speed points, it is just the same as taking away points from the guys who don't do this stuff. If you're a competitive but also safety minded pilot, don't think about these structures as "how will they take points away from me." Think about it as "how will they keep some other guy from beating me by doing stupid stuff."

John Cochrane

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:



How about this







1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.







You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.







This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.







Hi Tim,







Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.







Andy



Andy,



You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.



Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.



If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.



Tim

+1