RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Why not try it before buying it by allowing CD's the option to set a hard deck. They are setting the task, so they know the type of flying people will need to do to complete the task.

A task can be challenging without being dangerous, but "it depends" is a constant in our sport - the CD (Task committee) is in the best position to make the determination of what the limits should be on any given day. They already set the Max height and Task type/distance/direction - give them one more tool to try.

I agree we all do not want to reward bad piloting and I agree with many other points in this thread - I am not so sure how most of it prevents a good pilot with local knowledge like Tomas for who this thread was started, from making a fatal mistake - but doing nothing gets us a known result.

WH

The Minden valley is benign, but since my hypothetical contest was out of Truckee, and I am attempting to return late in day along pine nuts. Is the deck 14,000 at Bald Mtn if I attempt a final glide from there or 5500 if I go North by Air-Sailing?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The minden valley is about 4700 and pretty benign, so I'd put the hard deck in that area at 5500' MSL. The point is to not give points for low altitude thermaling.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
The Minden valley is benign, but since my hypothetical contest was out of Truckee, and I am attempting to return late in day along pine nuts. Is the deck 14,000 at Bald Mtn if I attempt a final glide from there or 5500 if I go North by Air-Sailing?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The minden valley is about 4700 and pretty benign, so I'd put the hard deck in that area at 5500' MSL. The point is to not give points for low altitude thermaling.


Jonathan, the hard deck is not intended to get you home. It's intended to keep from having to compete with those who are willing to risk life and limb to win. The deck at Mt Baldy would be well below Mt. Baldy, as good airports (well, airports anyway) exist to the south, north, and east of the peak. It's probably the same 5500' MSL. A crash on Mt Baldy (and there have been) will be due to a stall spin, not running out of altitude to get to a landing.

A better question might be, what is the deck over Lake Tahoe? We have pilots that are willing to commit to the water, hoping that there will be sufficient ridge lift at Day Dreams to keep them from getting wet. Pilots have died trying this. We have had pilots place well at contests doing this. We have had well known foreign pilots landing on the golf course in Tahoe City and by some miracle missing everyone with no loss of life. A deck over the water that allows a return to South Shore or an exit through Spooner or Brockway passes prevents me from having to compete with those pilots. They're going to do it anyway on non-contest days, but I do not pay the price for their foolishness. There are posters here who will argue it is their right to get wet if they so choose. But that just hands the trophy to the greatest fool that survived his foolishness.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 10:47:36 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Very interesting having a hard deck for a contest out of Truckee. What would the hard deck be on the Pine Nuts coming home?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.

As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.

Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.

Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.

The Pine Nuts would be sticking well through the hard deck. There are safe landing sites an easy glide on both sides. I don't want to have to compete with the guy circling at 400 ft at the south end of the Minden Valley though.

I don't mind flying with that 400ft thermalling guy, as long as I'm not down there with him lol. He's already lost the day.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.

As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.

Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.

Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.

'guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush' I'm one of those guys. In a $4000 1-26 with a 30 knot stall that's one thing. In a $200K 18 meter, it's entirely different. I'm familiar with the area, having flown there for nearly 30 years.

Then that will limit the type of flying you will be comfortable doing. If that limited perspective is adopted by the majority of 18m competition pilots, then the rules need to be adjusted to reflect that. Clearly thats whats happening and I would agree that's the type of racing they all chhose to do..

However that being said, then one need not be surprised when guys screw up and having no experience with low flying/pea patch landing/ground scraping end up hurting themselves.

I can tell you, when I lived in minden I flew the 1-26, the pilatus b4 and the ventus all with the same personal minimums, knowing however that the ventus gave me many more options distance wise, but all three could be put (and were) into tight landing places. Doing that with the ventus however took me about 30 pattern tows before I got a handle on getting her in slowely and in limited distance.
During 20 years of flying all three ships I made 23 outlanding that were not at established airstrips. Bent the pilatus one time hitting a lone unseen fence post.

As for the cost of damage, I'm assuming your ship is insured. You have to have it anyways so did I. It hurts just as much bending a 1-26 as it does a glass bird.

"You can't fix stupid".
In any competition, someone will always bend/stretch the rules.
Terra firms tends to weed out some over time in flying. At the detriment of others......

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 12:49:47 PM UTC-8, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
"You can't fix stupid".
In any competition, someone will always bend/stretch the rules.
Terra firms tends to weed out some over time in flying. At the detriment of others......

Condolences over the loss of Tomas.
It hurts us all, when any one pilot is lost to us. For any reason.

Secondly, +1 to this Charlie's observation.

I 'only' CM'ed about 18 Regionals in Region 12. Then took a little hiatus.
Then showed up to help be a towpilot (and crew) at the Tonopah Nationals. I also have seen the morph of rules, change of societal views from suck-it-up-buttercup to more nanny-state mentality. As a long-term CFI, I have seen the change from long-term involvement in soaring and progression through badges and skills, to the "what can I buy for $40k and go out with the guys?" Or, more blatantly, what can I buy to be at the top of the scoresheet. (My answer was - buy 40 years of experience or put 2500 hours in your logbook and make 7000 landings.)

Truly.... it takes a CD/CM event management with a set of huevos to 'level the field' somewhat. Over the years, I did several things that were not in the 'rules' and never had an issue with it. And later, I had a pilot make a request, and based on my Tonopah participation, agreed and put it into rules. 9.14. if you care to look it up.

A pilot landed out one day. Late, late retrieve. Morning rigging, missed the briefing, nasty heat day. Pilot launched and fell out. Crew struggles, we relaunch and he falls out again. He's entitled to another tow. I look him over,
he's irate, flushed, profane to his crew. I tell him he will go sit in the A.C. for 15 minutes. We will handle his glider. If he wants another tow at that time, he will get it - but he can't start his clock till he sits in the A.C. The cool off was worth it. He decided he was so far behind the day, he took the day off. Lived another ten years. Jack Lambie thanked me the week later.

A pilot mailed me his entry deposit (back when that was done). I called him and asked how much he had been flying at his home field that season (our event was in late August). He said he would come fly the practice weekend, but he hadn't been flying that summer yet. I said, sorry - I am mailing your check back to you. Didn't get a protest from him.

Had a contest pilot who leased his tug to me. Rules had morphed to a minimum finish height. We allowed high-speed low finishes out over the brush, away from buildings, and only if they had enough to climb and make normal closed traffic. Pilot had enough point-lead to win the contest with only a completion on the last day. In the AM he asked what the penalty would be for a low finish. 25 points. At ~5 pm, in the busy-ness of scoring, retrieve desk, paying tug pilots, etc. The CD storms in to ask if I knew what just happened at the gate. No? Another pilot stormed in, slapped down his recorder for download and asked if I knew what the so-and-so had done? No? The -25 point low finish had occurred - over the gate post & CD, over the parking ramp, over gliders pushing clear, over motorhomes -- and made most people run or fall to get lower from fear of being struck. The result in instant conference of CD and CM was - zero points for the day - unsportsmanlike and unsafe conduct. It was deliberate and considered - from the moment of penalty inquiry in the morning. The result was - NOT winning the event. OF drove out in a huff, but didn't protest the cape of 'pariah' slung onto him.

Later - Tonopah. I arrive about 2 pm Monday practice, mid-launch due to another towplane being disabled. I dump all my considerable freight, unfurl my rope on board and tow with the rest of the tug fleet. That evening, I get my 'briefing', which includes a short list of four contest numbers. If you pull in, in front of those - keep a sharp lookout! Why? They don't tow very well . . . and might do unconventional things. WTF???? If they're that bad, why aren't they sent home?
We don't have a rule that allows us to send them home.
And, we'd like to have their entrant money.
They won't win but they like to be at contests.
WTH???? So you would put ME at risk to launch them?
I was not pleased, nor impressed.

Following that contest, a Reg 12 pilot asked me how he could get an 'unsafe pilot' eliminated as an entrant. He wasn't going to fly contests anymore, if there wasn't a rule change or if this guy was there as an entrant. Hearing the exchange, looking at flight traces, knowing what I knew from being there, I took my request to the Contest Rules Committee. Bless their little hearts, they listened.
Paragraph 9.14 in National and Regional Rules now. So, if a CD or a CM has an issue with accepting any entrant, there is a channel for refusal. Not trivial, and hopefully above the level of any personal vendettas.

Do I think we can legislate 'good sense'? No.
Do I think it is valuable to openly discuss how to impact pilot choices during racing? Yes. Do I think it is right to consider how technology might interact with rules to reward more prudent choices? Yes. Do I think that gadgets can distract from rather than support situational awareness? Yes, many times.

But, the sport and racing will evolve.
Not always in the ways that I would wish. Navigation by pilotage is mostly a vanishing skill. Being "Reetered". Needing electronic tools to help calc on course what needs to happen to maximize your score, rather than flying an assigned task. The loss of the camaraderie of crew for everyone. Losses to me.

But, I am encouraged at the level of participation on this thread, and disappointed in only a few of the postings.
Know yourselves to be vulnerable humans.
Remember that glider racing will only earn you perhaps a moment's accolade. Violating your own margins ... can have lasting bad repercussions.

Fondly,
Cindy B

One of the most interesting, thoughtful and thought-provoking threads in
recent RAS history, IMO. Too bad how it came to be, and genuinely saddening
some among us will have future occasions to revisit this particular thought arena.

Excerpted from up-thread...
When all is said and done, the end outcome for the guy who doesn't
appreciate the seriousness of his decisions or his lack of decisions is
the same until that guy changes internally.

Some readers may take the above sentiment as merely another way of sanctioning
the, "Anything goes (woo hoo!)" worldview. I take it as "distilled human reality."

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com