A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 25th 18, 10:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

As always, John makes some excellent points. As occasionally happens, I don't necessarily agree with all of them.

Bob restated my thesis much more accurately and succinctly. It's not the risk, per se, that is appealing. It's mastering and managing the risk that keep me coming back every year.

Using the rules to reduce risk isn't new. We've been doing it as long as I've been flying, including: (skip to the bottom if you don't want a walk down soaring memory lane)

1. Eliminated the risks of high-speed retrieves from an early outlanding and hurried assembly before a quick relaunch.
2. Eliminated the risk of high-speed starts.
3. Reduced the collision risk of mass starts and eliminated the scoring risk that one or more pilots might be missed in the confusion.
4. Reduced the risk of heading out on course relatively low because of the old 1,000 m start gate altitude limit.
5. Eliminated the risk of low final glides, at least to the finish.
6. Eliminated the risk of low high-speed finishes.
7. Reduced the risks of catastrophic points penalties from relatively minor rules infractions with graduated penalties.
8. Eliminated the risk of being late in the launch queue and sitting on the ground while early launches start on course (relevant for old-style distance tasks and storm days).
9. Eliminated the risk of landing out simply because tasks were called under the philosophy that only half the field should finish.
10. Eliminated the risk of landouts on straight out and early area distance tasks.
11. Reduced the risk of flying with too little sleep from long flights and equally long retrieves occasioned by more aggressive tasking, including distance tasks.
12. Reduced the risk that one or a few pilots could gain a huge advantage through luck on an uncertain day (i.e., before devaluation became widespread).
13. Eliminated the risk of committing to a task set before the pilots' meeting that might be clearly inappropriate just a few hours later, which could result in mass landouts or a gross undercall.
14. Eliminated the risk that the manually operated start/finish gate might make an error, favoring or disadvantaging a pilot unfairly.
15. Eliminated risk that a pilot might attempt to achieve an advantage by [illegally] overloading his/her glider on a strong day.
16. Eliminated the risk that a pilot might illegally benefit and/or create a collision hazard and/or invite regulatory action from an airspace violation.
17. Reduced the risk of large numbers of gliders being forced to relight nearly simultaneously after being launched before soaring is possible.
18. Eliminated the risk of having to select a takeoff time in mid morning without knowing when the weather would become soarable.
19. Reduced collision risk by encouraging--and in some cases mandating--the use of FLARM technology.
20. Reduced the risk of being unable to locate a downed pilot by encouraging--and in some cases mandating--the use of ELTs.
21. Reduced the risk of landout damage by offering point-of-furthest-progress scoring and an airport bonus to incentivize pilots to land at airports.

I'm sure there are more. The point is that it's not out of line to consider another rules change to try to reduce the risk of pilots making mistakes when they are low. But is that what we want?

When I said that soaring without any risks wouldn't be as appealing, I wasn't referring to the above (mostly; I don't want to set off another debate about final glides and finish lines!).

Nor was I referring to the risk of, say, a midair collision, an uncertain event with disastrous consequences over which we have imperfect control.

But soaring isn't a video game (Condor excepted). We preemptively manage risk every time we turn our backs on the home airport and head out cross country, accepting the higher risk of damage from a possible land out. Mastering and managing that risk by flying well enough to return home while knowing how to pick a field and land in it safely if we can't is both exciting and satisfying, at least to me.

It's the same for flying a contest task on weak days when we otherwise wouldn't even bother to launch, much less attempt a cross-country flight, and for learning how to fly safely and competitively on ridges and in the mountains.

We all fly for different reasons. But for me, soaring would not have the same appeal if all we did was call short tasks on only the best days over landable flatlands. No one is suggesting that (yet). But the trend I see is towards a more regulated contest environment where we attempt to manage risks more through rules making (OK, scoring incentives), leaving less up to the pilot. That's not always a bad thing, just as free marketplaces need certain laws and regulations to prevent shortsighted and/or unethical players from profiting unfairly at the expense of others.

But we took navigation skills off the table years ago when we allow the use of GPS, making it easier for certain pilots (you know who you are!) to place well. We're already hearing that soaring is headed toward universal auxiliary power and the end of landouts, another skill from the old days.

For the sake of discussion, what hard deck would be proposed for flatland flying? Is the fact that some pilots could safely take it down to 500' while others would be at their limit at 1,000' mean we should set the deck at the higher level? Would removing the incentives for things that expert pilots can do safely but less qualified pilots cannot do reduce the reward for such excellence and result in compressing the skills--and points--of the pilots in a contest?

And could there be unintended consequences? I know my attention is more focused on my glide computer and altimeter when I am approaching the finish cylinder to make sure I don't bust the hard deck there...and that's when all I have to do is push over more or less to make the numbers come out. I watched several of the world's best pilots bust the hard deck at the finish at the Chile SGP in their eagerness to win the race. Was that a conscious decision knowing what the penalties were, or did they just take their eyes off the ball momentarily?

As I'm struggling to stay above the floor in a marginal thermal, do I want to have to watch the ####ing altitude readout closely not just to insure I'm hanging on but that I'm not sinking through the floor? If the thermal is choppy and I'm marginal, will I be tempted to pull back slightly to maintain my altitude, thereby eroding my safety margin? Will I be forced to ignore a hawk going up fast a half mile away knowing I'm likely to drop through the hard desk on the way there?

Will we be discouraged from flying over low hills and ridge lines seeking thermals when low because although they are far more likely sources, the hard deck makes them unusable?

And since we're trying to address human frailties here, what about the subtle message that it's safe to circle just above the hard deck? I don't know about the rest of you but my decisions to keep thermaling at 500' are very, very few and far between. I don't have a single criterion for that decision; it's contextual and depends on altitude, turbulence, wind, landing options, terrain, time of day, my physical and mental condition, my standing at the time and what kind of contest it is, etc. Some pilots may subconsciously be LESS likely to worry about the risks of low thermaling so long as they remain above the hard deck...because it's within the rules. The human mind behaves in odd ways.

I agree with John that technically a hard deck could be implemented, albeit imperfectly, in the flatlands. I just don't agree (at least now) that we should do it.

But it's a thoughtful discussion. We should probably retitle this and move it to another thread, however.

Chip Bearden

  #2  
Old January 26th 18, 03:41 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Chip has made very good points. Most compelling is the simple point that a hard deck is a distraction. It's a contest scoring related distraction at a point in time and space that none of us can afford one. I know how much focus is required when approaching the class A airspace boundary. When a possible off-field landing is imminent, I don't have spare bandwidth to deal with an artificially created problem and its set of nuances.

I also strongly agree with Chip's point that human nature will allow that circling to the bottom of what is permitted must be OK for me since it would be OK for others. That factor, combined with the problem of altitude measurement uncertainty forces the hard deck to a large number that simply will not be acceptable.

I generally favor rules to encourage safety. I have long favored changing to mandatory Flarm. I see the hard deck idea, unfortunately, as not workable.

  #3  
Old January 26th 18, 06:45 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:41:40 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
Chip has made very good points. Most compelling is the simple point that a hard deck is a distraction. It's a contest scoring related distraction at a point in time and space that none of us can afford one. I know how much focus is required when approaching the class A airspace boundary. When a possible off-field landing is imminent, I don't have spare bandwidth to deal with an artificially created problem and its set of nuances.

I also strongly agree with Chip's point that human nature will allow that circling to the bottom of what is permitted must be OK for me since it would be OK for others. That factor, combined with the problem of altitude measurement uncertainty forces the hard deck to a large number that simply will not be acceptable.

I generally favor rules to encourage safety. I have long favored changing to mandatory Flarm. I see the hard deck idea, unfortunately, as not workable.


Why is the hard deck any different than the hard ground? Do you find the hard ground to be a distraction? You already successfully race over a hard deck - the ground. Why is this one any different?

In fact it is far less of a distraction, because violation of the rules results in a penalty, and violation of the ground results in death.
  #4  
Old January 26th 18, 12:24 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 20
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Lots of comparisons to F-1 with respect to hard decks. What we have yet to acknowledge is the cars are safer. The wide skirts on tracks don't prevent the cars from hitting walls. Watch Robert Kubitsa's crash in Montreal. The safety barriers were not in play he was injured pretty bad but he lived to drive again. We have made great improvements in sailplane performance but not crash surviveability. People still crash modern passenger cars and die but at a lower rate then trundling a vintage 50's cat into the same object as a modern entry level Toyota. Rules have made sailplane racing safer but people still die and are going to die as long as we fly. We cannot legislate common sense. Even with rules people still crash cars. A glider is dangerous as soon as it is pulled to the flight line just as a car is dangerous as soon as we start the engine. Cars are crashed with significantly more energy then gliders but the crashes are more survivable. Rather than worrying about new L/D, better self launch, electronic devices and rules, pilots should demand manufacturers figure out how to build ships to survive a crash with greater regularity.
  #5  
Old January 26th 18, 03:33 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 580
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

When I bought my last glider, the Discus was all the rage. I paid more to get the ASW 24 because of its crashworthy safety cockpit. I also ordered the canopy wire deflector bar and added a 6-point harness and ELT, among other things, to improve crash survivability. Gerhard Waibel received an OSTIV award for his design, which includes an impact-absorbing landing gear and which has been used in subsequent Schleicher gliders.

The ads seem to indicate that the other makers are paying more attention to safety now but I don't know how successfully, or how important that is to most pilots. I voted with my wallet.

Chip Bearden
  #6  
Old January 26th 18, 01:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Steve Koerner
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 430
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Jon, That reasoning would work if the hard deck were somehow offered in lieu of the hard ground. Unfortunately we would have to deal with both at the same time. Would we not?


Why is the hard deck any different than the hard ground? Do you find the hard ground to be a distraction? You already successfully race over a hard deck - the ground. Why is this one any different?

In fact it is far less of a distraction, because violation of the rules results in a penalty, and violation of the ground results in death.


  #7  
Old January 26th 18, 02:10 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Muttley
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 89
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Coming back to the Chilean Grand Prix
Extract of the Commentary at about 1h10m

"very low",

"I have never seen a Chilean glider in this area",

"this is usually an area were we do not fly",

"they are very very low",

"you see my face, I would not like",

"one of the situation people get into particularly on the last day where everybody just want to keep going and normaly, they would have stopped for a climb even if it is weak",

"this evening you will be hearing stories about "I have never been so low" ",

"they look like good fields, they are not",

"a lot of fields with vines here",

"Chilean pilots will tell you they are no outlanding fields in Chili",

"this turnpoint is very tricky because in a valley with no good climb",

"we have never been at that low altitude in this area",

Thank you to "Fleg" from the French www.volavoile.net Forum for this extract.
  #8  
Old January 26th 18, 04:42 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
jfitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,134
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:49:24 AM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
Jon, That reasoning would work if the hard deck were somehow offered in lieu of the hard ground. Unfortunately we would have to deal with both at the same time. Would we not?


Why is the hard deck any different than the hard ground? Do you find the hard ground to be a distraction? You already successfully race over a hard deck - the ground. Why is this one any different?

In fact it is far less of a distraction, because violation of the rules results in a penalty, and violation of the ground results in death.


Steve, the hard deck replaces the ground in your thinking as it is above the ground. Once violated, now you've ended your contest points accumulation and can fly however you like. If placed at a reasonable altitude (this would be site related) you needn't worry about the ground until then, other than the normal keeping track of potential landing sites given your energy as we all do all the time (or should). The whole intent of a hard deck is that if perfectly designed, as long as you are above it you have a safe glide to a safe landing area. It isn't a perfect world but that is the intent.

In Kansas with landable farm fields as far as you can see, the deck could be 700 ft AGL or whatever people are comfortable with. I quit thermalling well above that myself even in flatlands. In the Minden area and east, the hard deck in many places could be 5000 AGL or even higher as it is a 40 mile glide to the next safe landing area. As you know from flying there, any reasonable day you will be 7000 feet above that. And again, this has nothing to do with ridges and mountains, which will poke through the deck and you can dust the rocks if you choose.

I've seen a number of pilots well below what I consider my hard deck. I've seen pilots down in the Lake Tahoe basin hoping to ridge soar Daydreams to make it out. I've seem pilots down in the canyons south of Mammoth, rocks on every side and no way out. Often then get away. But some of them are dead or no longer own an unbroken glider. I do not want to compete against that behavior.
  #9  
Old January 26th 18, 02:18 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Clay[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

I agree with Lautert's point above: knowing there's a hard deck will influence my flying miles before I reach it. Frankly I think it'd make me fly a little smarter, but who knows. Habitual offenders would be made obvious, perhaps leading to changes in behavior before it's too late
  #10  
Old January 26th 18, 03:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
MNLou
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 271
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

For a flatland contest, I'd put the hard deck at 1000'. That separates the "damn I need to land immediately" distraction from the "damn, I just landed out automatically" distraction.

Once below 1000' agl, set up a landing and then work on the save.

That's more in line with the SSF recommendations than a 500' deck.

Lou

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter pics 1 [03/11] - DeHavilland-Canada-DHC-6-100-Twin-Otter-Chile-Air-Force-Fuerza-Aerea-De-Chile-Twin-Engine-Airplane-Aircraft-940.jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 September 30th 17 03:10 PM
Any news from Chile Bob Gibbons[_2_] Soaring 3 March 2nd 10 04:08 PM
Soaring in Chile [email protected] Soaring 3 February 21st 09 11:43 PM
The GP in Chile cernauta Soaring 0 January 7th 09 12:51 AM
Reich Weapons in Australia robert arndt Military Aviation 0 January 3rd 04 04:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:29 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.