Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

In any case, if pilots at a race have a concern about the finish height, the CD has the option to adjust it. That said, at a big contest like Perry, adjusting the finish and complicating the pattern for 65 gliders to accomodate 1 or 2 makes not too much sense.

UH

Wise from UH. There is way too much asking the rules committee to impose from on high things that you can just talk to the CD about.

But..700 feet is really 500 feet, and 500 feet, 40 knots, and one mile from the south or north is really uncomfortable even in 15 meters at Perry. I also don't agree with Hank's idea that too much altitude leads to traffic problems. More energy always good. The CD can suggest an extended pattern if youse don't know what to do with yourselves for a few hundred feet. So if anyone wants to ask for 1000 feet at Perry, you'll have another voice to agree with it.

John Cochrane

First of all I would like to congratulate Sean for being able to pick the most controversial subjects to discuss on RAS. Just about every thread Sean starts or joins turns into a weeks long exchange that explores every possible nuance to the point of ad nauseam. If newcomers to the sport could be encouraged to the same degree we would see a boom in soaring participation.

But I digress my main observation is that twenty years ago before GPS to receive a good finish one had to arrive within the airfield boundaries with flying speed and it was necessary to complete a touchdown, roll out and stop without catastrophic incident. If you landed before the fence or executed an arrival rather than a landing, points for a successful finish were not awarded. The difference now is we are required to arrive above and within the horizontal boundaries of the top of an invisible cylinder. The cylinder itself is no different than a line of trees on the airfield boundary, enter it from anywhere other than above and you did not make the finish. Except of course we have graduated penalties, which change the whole safety objective, the main reason for going to a finish cylinder. Imagine if we had the same graduated penalties in the finish line scenario:
· hit the fence post but cause only superficial damage 20 points
· stall and groundloop just inside the airfield boundary, breaking off the tail boom 500 points
· but come to rest past the runway threshold 100 points
Well I hope you get the picture. Logically, if you don't complete the mission the way it is intended you don't deserve the points.

If safety is not the reason for adopting a finish cylinder then we might as well go back to the old finish line at least it was fun and it was simple to determine a valid finish. Both methods open the possibility to pull ups and thermalling low and close to the airport. Is this the behaviour we are trying to mitigate? Thermalling low down or aggressive pull ups can occur anywhere on task, this behaviour is not governed by proximity to the finish. However funnelling the fleet into a 1 mile radius cylinder at 500 ft may concentrate traffic to the point this behaviour can be detrimental to more than the individual performing these manoeuvres. We use a 5 mile cylinder for the start to provide separation should we not do the same at the finish. It could be argued that there is greater concentration at the start than the finish, but gaggling ensures a mass finish is not unusual. Finishing the race further out would necessitate a higher cylinder to allow the glider to cover the distance to the airport and extra height is needed to perform a circuit. The desired circuit arrival height can be used to determine the height at which the race ends at the circle boundary. Spectator value disappeared along with the finish line but if one is bent on thrilling the onlookers there is plenty more time and room to execute the move using the remote finish.

Contest site management already has the leeway to set a finish height. We have testimony that unless the finish is set high enough lower performance gliders entering the finish cylinder at the optimum height may encounter difficulty completing a satisfactory circuit and landing. Again if safety is the motivation then maybe we need to allow contest management the ability to set realistic safety parameters to suit the contest they are running. In a large contest at a restricted site a wider finish ring with height set high enough to ensure an orderly circuit for the given site and different finish heights to suit each class might alleviate safety concerns and given the more generous margins obviate the need for penalty points and the arguments they create. In short flexible finish height and an elastic cylinder radius may be the answer but despite all the risks I still prefer the old fashioned flying finish the most.

Andy Gough

On Friday, January 24, 2014 10:14:39 AM UTC-5, Andy Gough wrote:
First of all I would like to congratulate Sean for being able to pick the most controversial subjects to discuss on RAS. Just about every thread Sean starts or joins turns into a weeks long exchange that explores every possible nuance to the point of ad nauseam. If newcomers to the sport could be encouraged to the same degree we would see a boom in soaring participation.



But I digress my main observation is that twenty years ago before GPS to receive a good finish one had to arrive within the airfield boundaries with flying speed and it was necessary to complete a touchdown, roll out and stop without catastrophic incident. If you landed before the fence or executed an arrival rather than a landing, points for a successful finish were not awarded. The difference now is we are required to arrive above and within the horizontal boundaries of the top of an invisible cylinder. The cylinder itself is no different than a line of trees on the airfield boundary, enter it from anywhere other than above and you did not make the finish. Except of course we have graduated penalties, which change the whole safety objective, the main reason for going to a finish cylinder. Imagine if we had the same graduated penalties in the finish line scenario:

· hit the fence post but cause only superficial damage 20 points

· stall and groundloop just inside the airfield boundary, breaking off the tail boom 500 points

· but come to rest past the runway threshold 100 points

Well I hope you get the picture. Logically, if you don't complete the mission the way it is intended you don't deserve the points.



If safety is not the reason for adopting a finish cylinder then we might as well go back to the old finish line at least it was fun and it was simple to determine a valid finish. Both methods open the possibility to pull ups and thermalling low and close to the airport. Is this the behaviour we are trying to mitigate? Thermalling low down or aggressive pull ups can occur anywhere on task, this behaviour is not governed by proximity to the finish. However funnelling the fleet into a 1 mile radius cylinder at 500 ft may concentrate traffic to the point this behaviour can be detrimental to more than the individual performing these manoeuvres. We use a 5 mile cylinder for the start to provide separation should we not do the same at the finish.. It could be argued that there is greater concentration at the start than the finish, but gaggling ensures a mass finish is not unusual. Finishing the race further out would necessitate a higher cylinder to allow the glider to cover the distance to the airport and extra height is needed to perform a circuit. The desired circuit arrival height can be used to determine the height at which the race ends at the circle boundary. Spectator value disappeared along with the finish line but if one is bent on thrilling the onlookers there is plenty more time and room to execute the move using the remote finish.



Contest site management already has the leeway to set a finish height. We have testimony that unless the finish is set high enough lower performance gliders entering the finish cylinder at the optimum height may encounter difficulty completing a satisfactory circuit and landing. Again if safety is the motivation then maybe we need to allow contest management the ability to set realistic safety parameters to suit the contest they are running. In a large contest at a restricted site a wider finish ring with height set high enough to ensure an orderly circuit for the given site and different finish heights to suit each class might alleviate safety concerns and given the more generous margins obviate the need for penalty points and the arguments they create. In short flexible finish height and an elastic cylinder radius may be the answer but despite all the risks I still prefer the old fashioned flying finish the most.



Andy Gough

You are correct Andy. Even a 700ft AGL minimum finish height is not enough for a low performing glider to execute a safe pattern. Coming back from the ridge at Mifflin, into the wind and a good bit of sink, I found that at 700ft 1 mile out, it would be just enough to do a base-final turn. It was not intentionally executed in this manner... just a function of getting accustomed to another ridge site and its arrival procedures from the ridge. At other contests, 500ft AGL puts low performing gliders into a straight-in final to the runway.

Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

My finish height, fun, cross country, or contest is 1200'. Didn't win
a lot of contests but had a hell of a lot of fun.

MG
--
Mike I Green

Andy:

You took all of the words out of my mouth

On 01/24/2014 9:56 AM, wrote:
But..700 feet is really 500 feet, and 500 feet, 40 knots, and one mile from the south or north is really uncomfortable even in 15 meters at Perry.

Why are you coming in at 40kts? Is it perhaps because you made a bad
decision earlier in the flight and didn't stop for a climb, or were
running to hot and realized it too late? If you know you will be
uncomfortable don't fly to the minimums........

Luke

Why are you coming in at 40kts? Is it perhaps because you made a bad
decision earlier in the flight and didn't stop for a climb, or were
running to hot and realized it too late? If you know you will be
uncomfortable don't fly to the minimums........


Luke

Once again, real slow.

The problem with finishes does not occur when things work out as planned, and we bash home at 100 knots. Well, yes, actually, there were plenty of brain fade after finish problems, but that wasn't the real motivation for moving things up.

And yes, every sane pilot tanks up and doesn't set out across the woods separating himself from home until he has a decent energy reserve. Nobody plans to arrive at 500 feet and 40 knots.

But, welcome to soaring. Sometimes things don't work out as planned. 20 miles out, you had Mc 3 and 500 feet. But now it's 10 miles out, you found a lot of sink, and you're down to Mc 0 and 100 feet, about 2000' AGL. It looks like a few fields ahead. Keep going? Well, there are all those great stories of hero pilots who pulled up over the fence and made it.

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?

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.

In any case, if you do it, you are going to fly at best glide -- 53 knots, and then end up stretching the glide over the cylinder by gently slowing down to 40 knots.

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.

To your point, it does not matter how good your earlier decisions are, how conservatively you start your final glide. This situation will come to you sooner or later. It came to me once after leaving the last thermal 1500 feet over Mc 3. I landed one mile out, in the last good field, with everyone watching. I had 300 feet at that last field, but it was nothing but houses and powerlines to the airport.

Now, once we're honest with ourselves and realize how tough this decision is, how tempting it will be to continue, and how much going for it is part of the racing tradition and important toolkit of contest-winning pilots who aim to win nationals and worlds... How about we move the whole affair up 500 feet?

John Cochrane

snip...

How about we move the whole affair up 500 feet?



John Cochrane

Completely agree with moving it up 500 feet, in the old days, if you arrived 6 ft below the hard deck (the ground), you stayed there....

However having the 500ft floor only in the finish cylinder, with all the speed points at risk, does seem to incentivize low thermaling in an area that has high concentration of (perhaps) head down pilots. The pilot might even feel more comfortable trying to climb there due to the proximity of the airport.

Here is a suggestion, put the 500 ft hard deck out to 4 miles. Once you make your 4 mile call you are over a hard deck. You still need to come into the finish cylinder, everything remains the same, but once you fall under the 500 ft hard deck your done, join the landing traffic. If your final glide is marginal, and you think this is likely, you will want to stop and try to climb outside the hard deck, where the increased radius will help spread out the traffic.

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. It's irrelevant where this is taking place. If this is affecting finishing gliders, I suggest to move the finish up to 1000ft so that if there is really someone who is trying to thermal up at 500ft AGL, that there is enough separation that he does not affect the incoming traffic.

If you want a hard-deck 4 miles out to prevent pilots from electing bad judgement and thermalling low near the airport, then why is it okay to do so 5 miles from the finish? Or 50 miles from the finish to not land-out? I don't necessarily support the hard-deck nor am I opposed to it, but if you follow this sort of logic presented, that's a great reason to have a harddeck completely around the whole task area. The decision to thermal at 500ft is still the same decision, no matter where the pilot is.

Best Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

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