MAT's are dangerous

I agree with you Herb.

When I competed, I had more safety concerns on course in large gaggles (regionals and nationals) than I had on runs or turn points.

I guess, the "safety aspect" brought up will lead to banning ridge ontest flights (Mifflin, Ridge Soaring, Newcastle come to mind, I've flown all 3 places) due to even narrower height bands and even higher speeds!
Best example, the Newcastle "back ridge dump task" (to the tunnels by Blacksburg) can have dry speeds over 120MPH, that's a 240MPH closure speed.

A ridge out and back is drastically different. You know exactly where the opposite glider traffic will be as it is very obvious. You simply look right down the spine of the ridge.

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 5:23:25 PM UTC+1, wrote:
A ridge out and back is drastically different. You know exactly where the opposite glider traffic will be as it is very obvious. You simply look right down the spine of the ridge.

"Simply"? - it can be very easy to fail to pick up a glider that is on a direct head-on collision path and being on a ridge makes that no easier - especially as the closing speeds may be very high.

Thank you Wallace for sharing your hatred for MAT's.

Yes, the task I brought into light was in fact an AT. That is correct. Which is exactly my point. If this task was slightly different, with an extra turnpoint positioned off course to steer gliders away from a head on collision, then Chris O'Callaghan might be alive today.

We can learn from the past to prevent another air disaster.

So I will pose this question: With a MAT, what is limited pilots from choosing routes that go opposite direction flight paths just like this AT?


Yes Flarm helps to mitagate that threat, but the threat is still there. Calling a task that routes gliders head on with each other is a major mistake.. Allowing an MAT that allows gliders to route themselves head on with gliders is also a major mistake.

What is safer? A controlled route AT that does NOT pose a threat of a mid air or a uncontrolled random route in all MAT's?

My position is that MAT's have two concerns. 1. Like Wallace Berry mentioned, they are not any fun. And 2. More importantly, it decreases safety as opposed to the alternative.

Who will have the next mid air? Will it be you Herb? You say you can handle it just fine with flarm, but nobody is immune to accidents, nobody. As soon as you adopt that attitude, your chances of having an accident have drastically.

There are bold pilots and old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 11:37:24 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Thank you Wallace for sharing your hatred for MAT's.

Yes, the task I brought into light was in fact an AT. That is correct. Which is exactly my point. If this task was slightly different, with an extra turnpoint positioned off course to steer gliders away from a head on collision, then Chris O'Callaghan might be alive today.

We can learn from the past to prevent another air disaster.

So I will pose this question: With a MAT, what is limited pilots from choosing routes that go opposite direction flight paths just like this AT?


Yes Flarm helps to mitagate that threat, but the threat is still there. Calling a task that routes gliders head on with each other is a major mistake. Allowing an MAT that allows gliders to route themselves head on with gliders is also a major mistake.

What is safer? A controlled route AT that does NOT pose a threat of a mid air or a uncontrolled random route in all MAT's?

My position is that MAT's have two concerns. 1. Like Wallace Berry mentioned, they are not any fun. And 2. More importantly, it decreases safety as opposed to the alternative.

Who will have the next mid air? Will it be you Herb? You say you can handle it just fine with flarm, but nobody is immune to accidents, nobody. As soon as you adopt that attitude, your chances of having an accident have drastically.

There are bold pilots and old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.

Well, maybe I should have qualified what I said about MAT's. I don't like the standard MAT with just a couple of turns. However, I can see that they have their place. I just feel that they are used too often. And, I really do like the "long MAT's" that 711 mentions in his post. Best thing next to an AT.

I also will state this more plainly: I think doing away with MAT's would NOT have an effect on safety.

WB