Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 2:44:11 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:

I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.

Sean - It's pretty easy to tell when you're trolling.

It's pretty simple:

If you make it it was safe, if you brake your glider it was unsafe, if you die or kill someone it was really unsafe.

Trouble is you can't predict ahead of time - otherwise what you dial into the glide computer 40 miles out would be pretty much exactly what you see when you cross the finish. Saying that it's the PIC's job to manage the risk is a bit of a misuse of language. Risk is by definition the part that you can't manage - it's the pilot's job to decide if (s)he wants to take a risk or not - with imperfect information. We can set the system up such that lots of risks are allowed or not, with winning on the line against a small, but impossible to calculate probability that the risk that can win the day might also end in catastrophe. Sometime it does - not because the pilot was unskilled or dumb, but because (s)he was just unlucky despite skilled piloting.

Having watched a friend (on the US World Team) put a final glide with a bit of extra sink between the high and low wires at the airport boundary and having pulled the shattered wreckage of my glider off a road while they carted my Dad (a 10,000 hour experimental test pilot) off to the hospital for a 5-month stay from which he never totally recovered I have to say that I don't really see the point of the sport to see how close we can fly to obstacles without chickening out.

So my view is some reasonable structures in how the game is set up are appropriate. It needs to strike a balance and be appropriate to the circumstances - terrain, airport, number of competitors, experience levels, glider performance. This thread started with a contention that there is dangerous behavior (circling low) that needs to be addressed in the rules, rather than left to pilot judgement, so there is some agreement that the rules shouldn't tempt people to take unnecessary risks - we just have to decide which ones and how to do it with the minimum possible impact on the enjoyment of the sport.

This is from a guy who had JJ yell at me more than once for doing beatups at contests.

But that's just me.

9B

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:06:55 PM UTC-8, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:

It may surprize you, that some of our top pilots do the same scouting when they go to a US National. Some even arrive early and drive around the task area looking over the fields.

#711.

Guess why I've been spending time around Montague Tom.

This is a very good idea, not just for final glide. I've scouted unmarked runways, roads, better fields in a number of task areas in the spots where airfields are spotty and terrain is - um - unpleasant. The best ones go into my personal waypoint database in case they are needed.

I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.

Sean, I think your answer lies in another question to the community. It is,

1) Are you (a current or potential contestant) willing to execute the sort of finish shown in the videos in a contest?

2) If the answer is NO, would you accept pilots executing this sort of approach on a given day in order to earn speed points, whereas you would only earn distance points for executing a safe landout?

There is a large contingent of pilots that reasonably thinks that if you make it to the airport property, you should earn your speed points. However, for other pilots who are not willing to execute a marginal final glide like that, in some ways it is unfair to them that someone can "out-crazy" them and do better in the contest.

Consider this as well, while a pilot may answer Yes to first question I presented, maybe even a majority, it is not good for the community or the sport when someone gets killed doing this, or worse yet unexpectedly kills some poor guy on the ground while attempting this sort of final glide. As a result, I think the most prudent decision would be to have a finish that leaves abundant energy for a full pattern without attempting this sort of stuff shown in the videos, as exhilarating as it may be for some pilots. Leave the dicey final glides, VNE starts, low passes after finishes, etc to Condor.

Best Regards,
Daniel Sazhin

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 10:54:51 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:06:55 PM UTC-8, Tom Kelley #711 wrote:



It may surprize you, that some of our top pilots do the same scouting when they go to a US National. Some even arrive early and drive around the task area looking over the fields.



#711.



Guess why I've been spending time around Montague Tom.



This is a very good idea, not just for final glide. I've scouted unmarked runways, roads, better fields in a number of task areas in the spots where airfields are spotty and terrain is - um - unpleasant. The best ones go into my personal waypoint database in case they are needed.

Yes, its true. One of our very best US Team pilots who has almost as many National titles as KS, always arrives several days early at a Nationals. They take one full day just driving around, remarking maps and looking over off airport landing sites. Going so far even to check to see how much it might have rained in one area versus another.
I know others who use IGC files from those who do well at a contest site, looking at their traces where they stopped and thermaled at and marking those spots on a map to see if theirs any correlation(if thats the right word) going on.
Watching uTube videos and not being their, then trying to past judgement, is rather extremely difficult to do. Those pilots who make it to the WJGC's are good and they do task extremely hard. I believe at the last WJSC that Boyd Willat flew in, he did finish the task, but landed off airport. Down in Argentina, the same was happening. One day that Kawa won, he simply out drifted everyone to make the greatest distance. Its the contest site that allows this. Some of our sites just don't offer this. Thats where good judgement and wise decisions are needed.
Maybe best to say its been a good discussion. Several years ago we had clouds, then silly Walmart cell phones, now this. Next year might be more chemicals and better toilet paper in the potties are needed.....hell if I know..

#711.

On Monday, January 27, 2014 1:09:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.



Sean, I think your answer lies in another question to the community. It is,



1) Are you (a current or potential contestant) willing to execute the sort of finish shown in the videos in a contest?



2) If the answer is NO, would you accept pilots executing this sort of approach on a given day in order to earn speed points, whereas you would only earn distance points for executing a safe landout?



There is a large contingent of pilots that reasonably thinks that if you make it to the airport property, you should earn your speed points. However, for other pilots who are not willing to execute a marginal final glide like that, in some ways it is unfair to them that someone can "out-crazy" them and do better in the contest.



Consider this as well, while a pilot may answer Yes to first question I presented, maybe even a majority, it is not good for the community or the sport when someone gets killed doing this, or worse yet unexpectedly kills some poor guy on the ground while attempting this sort of final glide. As a result, I think the most prudent decision would be to have a finish that leaves abundant energy for a full pattern without attempting this sort of stuff shown in the videos, as exhilarating as it may be for some pilots. Leave the dicey final glides, VNE starts, low passes after finishes, etc to Condor.



Best Regards,

Daniel Sazhin

"A child who thinks and speaks like a man," - page 1072 of dune. no disrespect on the child part, this was simply a very eloquent post.

to comment on points one and two, i don't think people should execute low energy straight-ins, but in this specific case, the guy in the video cleary had options--Assuming he HAD scouted the area, and knew he wasn't approaching wires and fences.

Regarding the "out-crazy" part: with risk comes reward. having said that, sometimes the risk taken is too great for the reward. I am not insinuating that if you want to win you should take foolish chances; merely that sometimes the pilot who takes a chance, whether it is on a cloud, a ridge, or a final glide, gets the pay-off from taking the risk. our game is about taking chances and managing risk.

regarding a finish with abundant energy:

Most competition sailplanes do just fine as far as a pattern is concerned after a well executed low pass. if you see it going poorly, you have to change your plans. we shouldn't be afraid of them. with energy and planning there is nothing unsafe about it. does that mean lower performance gliders need more altitude? of course.


under US rules VNE starts aren't really an issue. the best answer to dicey final glides is preparation. i know you're all aware of this, but: if you you fly cross country, you need to be prepared to handle adverse situations, many of which I don't believe condor can adequately prepare one for.

gliding carries with it some amount of uncertainty. that's what keeps it fun.

On Monday, January 27, 2014 1:09:25 AM UTC-5, wrote:
I'll ask some questions this time around: Was this kids final glide decision safe or unsafe? Is successfully pulling off this kind of low finish fun or too risky? Is it a good thing for the sport of soaring or is it a bad thing? Is it good for soaring in the USA? Is it good for growing US contest participation or bad? Etc.



Sean, I think your answer lies in another question to the community. It is,



1) Are you (a current or potential contestant) willing to execute the sort of finish shown in the videos in a contest?



2) If the answer is NO, would you accept pilots executing this sort of approach on a given day in order to earn speed points, whereas you would only earn distance points for executing a safe landout?



There is a large contingent of pilots that reasonably thinks that if you make it to the airport property, you should earn your speed points. However, for other pilots who are not willing to execute a marginal final glide like that, in some ways it is unfair to them that someone can "out-crazy" them and do better in the contest.



Consider this as well, while a pilot may answer Yes to first question I presented, maybe even a majority, it is not good for the community or the sport when someone gets killed doing this, or worse yet unexpectedly kills some poor guy on the ground while attempting this sort of final glide. As a result, I think the most prudent decision would be to have a finish that leaves abundant energy for a full pattern without attempting this sort of stuff shown in the videos, as exhilarating as it may be for some pilots. Leave the dicey final glides, VNE starts, low passes after finishes, etc to Condor.



Best Regards,

Daniel Sazhin



"A child who thinks and speaks like a man," - page 1072 of dune. no disrespect on the child part, this was simply a very mature post from a young guy.

to comment on points one and two, i don't think people should execute low energy straight-ins, but in this specific case, the guy in the video cleary had options--Assuming he HAD scouted the area, and knew he wasn't approaching wires and fences.

Regarding the "out-crazy" part: with risk comes reward. having said that, sometimes the risk taken is too great for the reward. I am not insinuating that if you want to win you should take foolish chances; merely that sometimes the pilot who takes a chance, whether it is on a cloud, a ridge, or a final glide, gets the pay-off from taking the risk. our game is about taking chances and managing risk.

regarding a finish with abundant energy:

Most competition sailplanes do just fine as far as a pattern is concerned after a well executed low pass. if you see it going poorly, you have to change your plans. we shouldn't be afraid of them. with energy and planning there is nothing unsafe about it. does that mean lower performance gliders need more altitude? of course.


under US rules VNE starts aren't really an issue. the best answer to dicey final glides is preparation. i know you're all aware of this, but: if you you fly cross country, you need to be prepared to handle adverse situations, many of which I don't believe condor can adequately prepare one for.

lastly, i'm saying this conversationally, rather than argumentatively.

gliding carries with it some amount of uncertainty. that's what keeps it fun.

On Sunday, January 26, 2014 6:15:46 PM UTC-8, Brian wrote:
Hello Eric, and other non-contest pilots.



Don't be put off from contest flying by the Winter rantings and discussions of rules Minutia.



99% of the time Race rules are very simple. Start below a certain height, fly to all the turn points and finish above a the designated height.

Have fun, you will probably fly to destinations and distance you might not otherwise fly to.



Like another poster said it is basically a week of flying with a bunch other glider pilots who happen to be flying a similar course.



Brian

Being totally a racing neophyte, what I'm wondering is why so much discussion about complexities, or rather, why such complexities to discuss? Racing would seem to be a simple concept - start/fly the course/finish. Basic safety and points rules are necessary. Beyond that, first to finish is winner.

There would be more points associated with finishing than landing out going really fast - crossing the finish line is what counts. You run different classes to account for performance differences, but everyone within a class is on an equal handicap (none) basis. Start and finish lines are lines to be crossed in a specified direction, and don't have to be takeoff or landing field (to enable multiple planes abreast dashes to finish). (Maybe this is touching on GP format, not sure.) Basic idea is that racing means who is fastest around a course.

Whole point is "simpler is better." Tactics and strategies still enter in, but for getting across the line first. I'm looking at badge flying where turnpoints are made or not. Doesn't matter how far past a turn point you fly, either you make it or you don't. Make the turn points, you get the badge. Miss one by a meter, you don't. Only finish height rule is loss of height penalty - start/finish. Otherwise, totally up to pilot.

And why are the races on closed courses each day? Why not Field A to Field B day one; Field B to Field C day 2; and final day Field N to Field A? Maybe some logistical challenges, but might add some challenge and interest.

All these questions/comments probably are a different thread, but what the heck - it's winter ... even in SoCal it's winter (sort of).

Can't wait to try my first contest this spring ... fly it like you say - start/fly course/finish per rules - massage the complexities during the winter.

"A child who thinks and speaks like a man," - page 1072 of dune. no disrespect on the child part, this was simply a very mature post from a young guy.



Time to get my geek on...

“I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that
brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass
over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner
eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only
I will remain.” - Frank Herbert

Cheers

Major snippage...

I agree with Dave on this. Its the JWGC, they might be young but they are
good. He had plenty of options and seems to already know where he would be
landing. Sure, no one wants a finish like that, but it shows it can be done
with prior planning. World Teams scout out all the landable fields ahead of
time, not only around the airport, but out on course. It may surprize you,
that some of our top pilots do the same scouting when they go to a US
National. Some even arrive early and drive around the task area looking
over the fields.

#711

FWIW, no need to wait until "you're a nationals level contest pilot to
pre-scout fields"...a thought I'd hope would be obvious to every (potential)
XC pilot...but which I know for a fact, isn't! :-)

I started scouting fields (& brain picking, and cross-checking
information/feedback) before I had my license, so foreign to my brain was the
very idea of not landing at the gliderport of my takeoff, much a
never-before-seen field. Continued to pre-scout over the next 3+ decades.
Eventually moving to the intermountain west (where fields in the hills can be
few, far-between, misplaced on maps [and now databases], etc., etc.), simply
increased my motivation for "ground truth." Since us northern hemispherians
have reason to believe spring will (eventually) arrive, I've found spring a
Great Time to use those unsoarable (rainy, foggy, dreary) days for extended
day excursions into the hills/boonies to scope out ground truth...good for
one's personal soaring safety/confidence, can be good for the fambly and
mutts, good for everyone's souls...

Bob - never a "real contest pilot" - W.

To sum up this thread...

1) I think the position the RC is in is an incredibly challenging one. But overall some form of an MFH cushion to "protect pilots from themselves" is important and adds to safety in general.

2) I think ANY penalty will cause the bad behavior which is pointed out in the very first post of this thread. The amount of penalty is almost irrelevant unless it is reduced dramatically.

3) I think a moderately reduced penalty structure (1/3 of current, or less) should be applied to a higher MFH standard (1200/1000). This would widen the margin of safety for a pilot trying to circle while making the penalty more acceptable when it is clear that little chance remains for saving the miscalculation.

After than the PIC is on his/her own. If they want to circle at 900 MSL for awhile and try to get above the administrative land out...good luck to you. The rules have done their part in trying to encourage a safe approach into the finish and pattern and landing. And in most cases, that pilot will still have the energy for a safe pattern even after fighting for a while....

Sean

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, 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! ;-)