Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

And lastly while I am on a roll, this graduated penalty stuff is really bizarre, especially with respect to turnpoints, followed by starts and finishes. I understand that 25 years ago that the GPS loggers were much less accurate and a one mile leeway for hitting the turnpoint may have been necessary.. Nowadays, the vast majority of pilots have displays on their logging systems which clearly show if they hit the turnpoint or not. Even the ancient Colibri that I have used as my IGC logger beeps when the turnpoint is touched. The one mile leeway we have is insane! To save two miles on hitting the turnpoint and taking a penalty is a very valuable tactical decision and rules should not affect tactical decisions in this way. Bottom line, I think this should be ended.

For starts, most people have stopwatches, or some other form of clock. Furthermore, no one has ever said that you must wait exactly two minutes and go.. Why shouldn't a pilot stay say 3 minutes as an added safety factor? It would be more beneficial to simplify the rules and make 2 minutes the defining factor.

With respect to starts and finishes, I think there should be 50ft of leeway given, but with 1 point per foot. A MINIMUM altitude is intended to be the floor or the ground. In the past, you could not finish under the ground. With 50ft of leeway given in starts/finishes, this could account for most instrument errors with a simple penalty system that does not require understanding a long formula.

Best Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

On Friday, January 24, 2014 11:51:28 AM UTC-5, wrote:
The decision to thermal at 500ft AGL is the same at the finish sector, out on course or attempting to thermal out from a relight near the airport.

snip...


Daniel, I had the same thought, but really I think there is a difference between having a hard deck out on course or having one just in the "prep for landing zone". I have been guilty of low save attempts, some successful, some not, some in contests, some not. But when I have attempted them, I was alone with each turn pointed at a final into an airport or field. Having someone try it near the finish cylinder is undesirable not for their own safety (well that too) but for the safety of others. Giving a 400 pt "bonus" for pulling it off, does not seem like the right thing to do. Extending the floor of the finish cylinder out some reasonable distance, would remove the incentive to save a "land out at the airport" near the airport. I would note that the suggestion of increasing the size of the finish cylinder accomplishes the same thing, but perhaps makes the pattern entry of the landing traffic less predictable.

RR

Or perhaps we just give the folks that are pushing for a rolling finish what they want and let Darwinism deal with them. Caveat; if you cut me off in the pattern, if I have to do evasive maneuvers to avoid you within the finish cylinder, if you jeopardize my safety in the pattern in any way, or if you jeopardize the safety of someone on the ground, then you are summarily tossed from the contest.....

On Friday, January 24, 2014 8:52:32 AM UTC-8, Craig R. wrote:
Or perhaps we just give the folks that are pushing for a rolling finish what they want and let Darwinism deal with them. Caveat; if you cut me off in the pattern, if I have to do evasive maneuvers to avoid you within the finish cylinder, if you jeopardize my safety in the pattern in any way, or if you jeopardize the safety of someone on the ground, then you are summarily tossed from the contest.....


What everyone is blowing off is that the finish is NOT about YOU and having a thrill at the finish, but the safety of the other pilots and ground personnel that your actions impact. Let's keep our eye on that ball.

What everyone is blowing off is that the finish is NOT about YOU and having a thrill at the finish, but the safety of the other pilots and ground personnel that your actions impact. Let's keep our eye on that ball.

Wow. This whole thread is fascinating - I'm looking at flying my first competitions this season, and finding I'm in way over my head. My comments are a bit off the main thread, but relevant to me and perhaps others that aren't competition pros.

The idea of thermaling at 500' AGL or lower is beyond my comprehension at this point in my soaring career, and entering a landing pattern at 500' - 700' from a mile out contrary to all my student piloting lessons (even though I can calculate that it is readily doable in my glider).

The rules themselves seem straightforward, even though I have little idea of how they play out in a contest. And the start and finish cylinder concepts seem straightforward. All I'm really interested in for my first tries is finishing each day, flying safely, not doing anything stupid, leaving plenty of margin, scoring some points, and having a challenge and fun (i.e. wanting to do it again).

I expect as time goes on, flying more contests will lead to my learning and appreciating the strategies and tactics discussed in a lot of this thread - but my main concerns are whether the current rules are in fact safe for a neophyte to contests and a relatively low-timer. From the discussions, I'm not getting a clear sense of whether they are or not (specifically as related to the finish).

I understand we are all subject to sometimes making dumb decisions, or the weather making our plans (and margins) vanish - but the rules should basically enable safe flying in contests, even accounting to some degree the wide variance in risk different pilots are willing to take under varying circumstances. Reassure me that the rules do enable basically safe flying in contests. I have to assume they do since the fatality rate doesn't seem to be something that draws headline attention.

Eric Bick

Once again, real slow.


John,

I really appreciate you taking the time to explain things "real slow" to
me, the 2 brain cells I have left after beating my head against the wall
couldn't keep up with you before.

Recognize that this is a very tough decision. If you just say "I won't be tempted" you are in deep, deep denial, totally fooling yourself and ripe to make the wrong decision. Think very very hard about this little coffin corner before you get there, have a set of quantitative guidelines ready. Pilots who get this right do it by knowing they will be tempted and guarding against that.

After unsuccessful attempts to explain, due to possible brain damage, I
will be more direct;
I realize that I will be tempted, I accept it as a part of soaring, I
welcome it as a test of personal constitution.

But, welcome to soaring. Sometimes things don't work out as planned.

This is precisely what keeps me coming back. It isn't an experiment
under controlled laboratory conditions boiled down to a mathematical
formula. I fly on the good days, I fly on the bad days, each flight is a
totally different experience that feeds the dark lump of coal which
beats inside my chest.

And now, despite all your great planning, you're 5 miles out, Mc 0 + 100 feet. 750 feet AGL. You're doing great in the contest so far. Last field below. Trees ahead. Hero stories ringing in your ears. You know they'd do it -- they've said so a hundred times. This is how contests are won, no? Are you really going to stop, with 750 feet still remaining, while the computer says you can make it?

Risk management is a big part of soaring, most racing pilots aren't dare
devils, they manage the risk according to any number of factors.
Gliding is much more than the MacCready theory and technique, it's not
just numbers on a spread sheet. Knowing how to control your emotions
and distinguishing impulse from intuition are a key part of the game.

Maybe yes. I have known a lot of pilots who made the decision to throw away a nationals in this circumstance and land. I have. I know a lot of pilots who went for it, and made it, and were heroes. I know a few pilots who went for it and did not make it.


You are diluting the sport to statistics and probability. Being an
excellent pilot and a smart man you realize that, mathematically
speaking, one of the few ways for the other guy to beat you is by taking
a bigger risk. Based on your posts in this thread it appears to me that
you are trying to mitigate that possibility by changing the rules to
meet your own criteria and are using "safety" as a battling ram.

Last year one of my goals was to stop trying to beat the other guy and
just fly my own flight. As a result my enjoyment of contests has been
increased exponentially - highly recommended.

Luke Szczepaniak

On Friday, January 24, 2014 12:20:32 PM UTC-8, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:

Risk management is a big part of soaring, most racing pilots aren't dare
devils, they manage the risk according to any number of factors.

You are diluting the sport to statistics and probability. Being an
excellent pilot and a smart man you realize that, mathematically
speaking, one of the few ways for the other guy to beat you is by taking
a bigger risk.

Luke Szczepaniak

Hi Luke.

Your comment(s) made me very curious. I'd like to understand the full range of views in the community.

Two questions for you:

Is your preferred configuration no penalty structure for finishing low? Having a minimum finish height is almost entirely a safety-motivated rule.

Second, would you prefer to remove the requirement that finisher land at the home airport in order to earn speed points? This would be the next safety-motivated rule in the finish sequence.

I'm trying to figure out if you prefer not to have safety-oriented rules as a matter of principle or a matter of degree.

Thanks,

9B

I would personally prefer to have a minimum 50 foot flying line finish
at the airport with the possibility of a rolling finish as a safe
alternative. It is the pilots responsibility to conduct a safe finish.
If there is a real safety concern the pilot should be penalized
accordingly by the CD.

If the 1 mile circle is my only option the simple guy in me wants to say
that it should be a hard deck, if you can't cross the finish line above
MFH you didn't complete the task, 0 speed points. Having said that, I
see the other side of the coin, and am easily swayed towards a linear
reduction in points all the way to the ground. I do not like the
graduated penalty of some arbitrary number that will be shifted every year.

As a completely out side of the box proposition we could always use the
1000m IGC height loss rule. Keeps people lower in the start cylinder,
keeps people higher in the finish, as an added bonus it gets us back in
line with the record/badge world so there is a possibility of setting a
record in a contest.

The requirement to land at the airport is a personal favourite of mine,
I hope you are not edging me on . In my opinion the rule as written
right now promotes unsafe behaviour. The pilot completes the task,
chooses the safer option to land out (who lands out when they don't have
to?), but we take away all the speed points? Makes no sense to me.

Thanks for keeping an open mind.
Luke Szczepaniak







On 01/24/2014 5:32 PM, wrote:
On Friday, January 24, 2014 12:20:32 PM UTC-8, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:

Risk management is a big part of soaring, most racing pilots aren't dare
devils, they manage the risk according to any number of factors.

You are diluting the sport to statistics and probability. Being an
excellent pilot and a smart man you realize that, mathematically
speaking, one of the few ways for the other guy to beat you is by taking
a bigger risk.

Luke Szczepaniak

Hi Luke.

Your comment(s) made me very curious. I'd like to understand the full range of views in the community.

Two questions for you:

Is your preferred configuration no penalty structure for finishing low? Having a minimum finish height is almost entirely a safety-motivated rule.

Second, would you prefer to remove the requirement that finisher land at the home airport in order to earn speed points? This would be the next safety-motivated rule in the finish sequence.

I'm trying to figure out if you prefer not to have safety-oriented rules as a matter of principle or a matter of degree.

Thanks,

9B