1000km flights

You put ten pilots into a contest involving 7 or more consecutive days of 4+ hour tasks, and throw in a land out or two, and you see it requires a much different skill set ( both mentally and physically) than what we have today.

As for longer distance tasks, its a function of increased performance . A 250 mile task set in the 70's-80's is equivalent to a 320 mile task in todays machines.

All I am saying is todays racing is a much different style of competition than the last generations. Todays contests "test" a different skill set. But to say that multiple "long" tasks are "dangerous" and we better keep things shorter for safety sake, is to me, actually defining modern racing. This sentiment goes along with disallowing low high speed finishes, and the preference for tasks with variability in turnpoint penetration/selection.

All these changes have changed racing. Is it better than the "old days"? Not necessarily. Is is worse than the old days? Not necessarily. Is it safer than the old days? Possibly, but is safety what racing is about? Not necessarily. Racing is racing, and safety when all the rules have been emplaced, is still a matter of personal responsibility. Don't tell me that a guy flying a machine with a sustainer doesn't take more chances in a race than a guy flying a conventional machine. Is he safe doing it? Not necessarily.

Hurculean advancements in performance, electronics, and changes in competition pilot mindsets have changed the sport. Which direction it ultimately goes is still up in the air, along with its survival.

On Friday, January 5, 2018 at 7:05:18 AM UTC-6, wrote:
You put ten pilots into a contest involving 7 or more consecutive days of 4+ hour tasks, and throw in a land out or two, and you see it requires a much different skill set ( both mentally and physically) than what we have today.

As for longer distance tasks, its a function of increased performance . A 250 mile task set in the 70's-80's is equivalent to a 320 mile task in todays machines.

All I am saying is todays racing is a much different style of competition than the last generations. Todays contests "test" a different skill set. But to say that multiple "long" tasks are "dangerous" and we better keep things shorter for safety sake, is to me, actually defining modern racing. This sentiment goes along with disallowing low high speed finishes, and the preference for tasks with variability in turnpoint penetration/selection.

All these changes have changed racing. Is it better than the "old days"? Not necessarily. Is is worse than the old days? Not necessarily. Is it safer than the old days? Possibly, but is safety what racing is about? Not necessarily. Racing is racing, and safety when all the rules have been emplaced, is still a matter of personal responsibility. Don't tell me that a guy flying a machine with a sustainer doesn't take more chances in a race than a guy flying a conventional machine. Is he safe doing it? Not necessarily.

Hurculean advancements in performance, electronics, and changes in competition pilot mindsets have changed the sport. Which direction it ultimately goes is still up in the air, along with its survival.

Many of us have already read this article by Karol Staryszak. An important contribution to the discussion about the 'racing-safety' relationship:

http://soaring.eu/?p=20949

Hi Tom, thanks for that post. I had read it before but it's been awhile and this one I feel is good to re-read yearly specially before a contest or a personal goal flight.

Excellent and sad.
Excellent on the points and point of view.
Sad in the reason for the writeup and knowing (personally) people that have been hurt.......or worse while flying.

Thank you for the link.

Yes Charlie thats truth