Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

On 01/24/2014 1:52 PM, Eric Bick (1DB) wrote:
Reassure me that the rules do enable basically safe flying in contests.


In short, they do. Come fly a contest, use your best judgement as pilot
in command to be safe, learn a ton and have fun.

These winter discussions stem from differences in opinion. Some people
find it unacceptable that the rules don't prevent each and every pilot
from making mistakes, so they want to make a rule that covers every
single possibility, I on the other hand believe that the responsibility
lies with the guy behind the controls.

Luke Szczepaniak

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

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

Some people find it unacceptable that the rules don't prevent each and
every pilot from making mistakes, so they want to make a rule that covers every
single possibility, I on the other hand believe that the responsibility
lies with the guy behind the controls.

Luke Szczepaniak

For about the 150th time, the finish rule (nor the RC philosophy behind it) does NOT attempt to "prevent pilots from making mistakes", "cover every single possibility" "legislate safety" or take any "responsibility" away from the PIC. The rules (and law) state explicitly that the PIC is responsible for all safety decisions.

The finish rule is designed to remove what was a strong temptation to unsafe behavior, and put decision making back in the pilots' hands. Befo 400 points if you can squeak over the quarry and clear the fence. Now: same points either way, you make the decision. Who is telling who what to do? Who is taking away responsibility?

I'm getting grumpy, because this calumny just keeps getting repeated over and over. And answered over and over.

John Cochrane

On 01/24/2014 3:56 PM, wrote:
I'm getting grumpy, because this calumny just keeps getting repeated over and over. And answered over and over.

This will continue as long as we have a difference of opinion. It is
your prerogative to fly the task in a manner deemed safe by you, I
respect that. Do you respect the fact that 4/3 majority of contest
pilots in the poll disagree with the rule? Are we a statistical anomaly
to be thrown out, perhaps we are just dumb thrill seekers looking for a
quick way out? Maybe you can word the question better next year to get
a more favourable response.

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

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 6:46:02 PM UTC-7, Sean F (F2) wrote:
I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.



-----------------------------------------------------------

Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?



If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.



To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.



Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.



However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.



If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.



Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.



Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.



Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.



So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.



Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”



So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):



• Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.



• Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).



• Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?



Let the flame wars begin! ;-)



Ok, we should all agree, its best for the rules, if possible, to remain constant. A rolling finish is allowed with a "gate". With a rolling finish, the entrant still gets speed points. The cylinder does not allow a rolling finish, a penalty is applied only down so far below MFH, then a landout occurs. You can still land at the home airport, but your not rewarded for your flight with speed points.

10.9.3 Finish Gate
10.9.3.1 A task shall include a Finish Point which is the center of the Finish Gate, and a finish direction which is the true ground
track of a sailplane crossing perpendicular to the finish gate.

10.9.3.2 The Finish Gate is a vertical plane of unlimited height approximately 3300 feet wide with its bottom at 50 feet AGL. At
least one end of the Finish Gate will be clearly marked on the ground. Pilots electing to fly through the Finish Gate must pass
through it only in the specified direction with sufficient energy to fly a full or partial pattern to a safe landing on the airfield.
10.9.4 Rolling finish
10.9.4.1 When a Finish Gate is in use, the CD shall designate one or more rolling finish areas on the home airfield.
10.9.4.2 Communications
10.9.4.2.1 When four miles from a rolling finish, the pilot shall transmit "[Contest ID] four miles, rolling finish."
10.9.4.3 Pilots performing a rolling finish shall touch down and roll to a stop as specified by the CD, and will be timed as the
sailplane comes to a complete stop.

10.9.4.4 If announced by the CD prior to the start of competition, a time adjustment will be added to rolling finishes. This
adjustment will be based on the vertical and horizontal distance between the rolling finish and the location designated for a flying
finish.

Both finishes, share the same thing, as the pilot must cross a line to finish. The height is what's different and the "gate" allows a rolling finish where the "cylinder" does not. The cylinder doesn't allow speed points for making the airport below MFH-200 feet. Since a rolling finish is allowed for a "gate" with slightly reduced speed points, then a rolling finish should also be allowed for a cylinder, making it constant for both types of finishes. If an entrant can not make the MFH as in a cylinder, then a rolling finish, with a few added minutes, shouldn't it be allowed to get the reduced speed points? The "few minutes" which can be set by the CD at each contest site. Remember we have rules for unsafe flying, patterns and landings.

#711.

I've always preferred a finish gate for one big reason - it drastically decreases "clockwatching" while approaching the finish, allowing more time for looking out and finding/avoiding conflicting traffic while planning how to merge into the pattern. And since you knew that you could finish either high or low, you could have a plan for each case; if high and in traffic, stay high; if alone, push over and finish fast and low; if really low, call a rolling finish and squeak in. Done all of them, and never worried about losing points by being too low, or trying to ooch over an invisible line in the sky...

Now with flarm, getting surprised by someone at the finish should be rare.

I do see the potential problem of a lot of finishers at the same time at a small field - which is where a cylinder makes sense to give everyone time (altitude) to sequence for landing.

But at a big field with lots of landing room - perhaps some brave CDs should try some gate finishes (perhaps tied to -gasp! - a speed task) and see how pilots like it.

kirk
66

On Friday, January 24, 2014 5:39:10 PM UTC-8, kirk.stant wrote:
I've always preferred a finish gate for one big reason - it drastically decreases "clockwatching" while approaching the finish, allowing more time for looking out and finding/avoiding conflicting traffic while planning how to merge into the pattern. And since you knew that you could finish either high or low, you could have a plan for each case; if high and in traffic, stay high; if alone, push over and finish fast and low; if really low, call a rolling finish and squeak in. Done all of them, and never worried about losing points by being too low, or trying to ooch over an invisible line in the sky...



Now with flarm, getting surprised by someone at the finish should be rare..



I do see the potential problem of a lot of finishers at the same time at a small field - which is where a cylinder makes sense to give everyone time (altitude) to sequence for landing.



But at a big field with lots of landing room - perhaps some brave CDs should try some gate finishes (perhaps tied to -gasp! - a speed task) and see how pilots like it.



kirk

66

That's an interesting point Kirk.

For those airports with one runway and you can't land a bunch of gliders line-abreast, I've been thinking about the new GP start (BTW - thanks to BB for coming up with an elegant and flexible approach to make that happen). Judging from observations of GP contests it seems like you might end up with most of a class finishing in a narrow time window (start as a gaggle, fly the task as a gaggle, finish as a gaggle). What do you think is a reasonable amount of altitude buffer to allow, say 12 gliders to land within a few minutes on a single runway? Do we need to abide by the "one airplane on the runway at a time" rule or do people land in formation like the Thunderbirds (notice I didn't say Blue Angels)?

9B