Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?

Be still, my racing heart, it's only January!

Yeah, I know: this is about as likely as a free ASG-29 showing up in my driveway.

Nice daydream though.

T8

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 8:15:48 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?

Be still, my racing heart, it's only January!

Yeah, I know: this is about as likely as a free ASG-29 showing up in my driveway.

Nice daydream though.

T8

To really simplify you have to start nearly from scratch - typically because of interdependencies and accumulation of rules on top of rules. This is not without its perils.

It wasn't just onboard technology where simplification held sway this year. Simplification came up in the discussion of the interplay between having to land to restart a task (or not), the requirement to land at the airport post-finish (or not) and the ability to use the finish point as a MAT turnpoint (if it is designated a turnpoint). There is also a lot of complexity in creating special rules to accommodate motorgliders without conferring an unfair advantage (an eye of the beholder topic for sure). Maximum number of tows allowed, what and where a motorglider/sustainer can do an engine test run. It's a lot of figuring out the principle at stake and all the different scenarios that can occur that meet or violate the principle you're aiming for. In all of the above cases the RC opted for simplification after a boatload of analysis and discussion. Take a look and see what you think. Right direction or wrong direction to take provisions out.

More radical surgery is a more time-consuming task with even more tradeoffs.. Taking the sliding scale penalty off the finish has come up. The dirt-simple version is you either finish above MFH or you don't. In theory you could eliminate MFH altogether - 0 foot finishes at a mile or two - I guess that is literally dirt-simple. Not sure who would go for it. The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.

9B

Please! Please! don't make us carry surveillance cameras in the cockpit. How I long for the days when everyone had to go to specific points in the sky and a good finish was landing anywhere on the airport. Having said that, many of the changes in recent years are excellent and have no significant down side. Some of the changes, however, seem to be fixes for problems that have not yet occurred. Simplification is a commendable goal and I applaud the rules committee for attempting to do so.
Dale Bush DLB

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:12:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.

The reason for this is that Sports Class doesn't have that option and it makes sense that all concurrent classes are using the same finish.

90% of our contests include a Sports Class, so effectively the finish line is history.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On 01/20/2015 2:20 PM, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 12:12:18 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.

The reason for this is that Sports Class doesn't have that option and it makes sense that all concurrent classes are using the same finish.

90% of our contests include a Sports Class, so effectively the finish line is history.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.

A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout.

Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?

John Cochrane.

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:


Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

John Cochrane.

By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?

And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.

Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others.

Steve Leonard

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:12:11 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:


Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

John Cochrane.

By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?

And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.

Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others.

Steve Leonard

It's an interesting question about where, and how high, you want to congregate traffic. In the end, if you intend to finish at the airport you are going to have a bunch of gliders coming together at whatever the finish height is (maybe zero if it's a gate). If it's a line with anything but a basically perpendicular final course line you will be concentrating that traffic at the close end of the gate and at the finish height. I was squeezed up against that point a few times 30 years ago. I still remember the experience vividly - including the other pilots. It works decently well on an AST (Fidler - you listening?) because you are all lined up on final glide and know who you are going to be dealing with at the finish 20-30 miles out. With modern tasks (TAT and MAT) I think you need a steering turn at least 20-30 miles out where people are at altitude and cruising, rather than on final glide where they all hit the turn on final glide at the same altitude. I'd still take converging traffic to a 1-mile cylinder at altitude over converging traffic to the edge of a gate at zero feet. In fact I'm not even sure how you'd do it on a MAT without a mandatory final turn where gliders could be trying to hook the gate going opposite directions at redline and zero feet - ouch!

9B

The final steering point does not have to be that close to home!

Luke

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:28:27 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.

A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout..

Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?

John Cochrane.

I stirred it up simply to show that, in terms of pilot wants and needs, having the ability to have AHRS in their gliders is not even visible on the list. The RC should be working, as much as possible on elements pilots need and care about.
Very few pilots think they need, or care about, being able to have AHRS available to them.
I suspect this initiative is more about making smartphones legally usable in the cockpit, in no small part due to the potential attractiveness of tracking systems that might use them. If so, let's get it out and talk about that.
I'll go first with my position. It is that a phone has it's place which is stowed in a safe place by the pilot(maybe on his chute harness and turned OFF.
Back under the desk
UH