RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

And hope the cows "break the wind"

I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Well Krasw your free to enact any additional rules you want over there. We're independent revolutionary individualistic freedom loving self responsibility minded americans. Give it a go. If you make it work maybe we will adopt it over here.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Actually, I've heard sound arguments on both sides of this debate, both sides. Makes me think you're being sarcastic.

I respect John's proposing a concept he believes will help save lives. I originally thought the hard deck was some number above the estimated terrain altitude similar to the Altitude AGL field on my TopHat flight computer (based on the terrain altitudes in the mapping database).

But I think John is proposing big blocks of airspace, SUA style, that establish a horizontal plane over some swath of terrain below which we could not fly without incurring a penalty. That plane might be as little as a few hundred feet or less above a local high point or as much as thousands of feet above low and/or unlandable spots.

Would these new SUAs be different for Standard/15M Class vs. 18 Meter vs. Open Class, since the ability to glide out to a safe landing varies?

One of the challenges (consulting-speak for "problems") I see is navigating over these planes. We wouldn't be able to see them. Perfectly adequate clearance over the terrain under a nice-looking cloud or fast-climbing gaggle might, in fact, be under the hard deck by the time I glide there. Yes, the same is true for actual terrain but at least I can eyeball that on the way and make adjustments (proceed at slower speed, climb in weak lift, turn back).

Under the current rules, the Rules Committee has judged--probably not without reason--that it's unwise to allow us to overfly restricted/controlled airspace because we might not be able to glide out beyond the outer border. So all of those areas extend from their floors up to infinity for scoring purposes; i.e., we can fly under but not over.

The reverse is true in this proposal. It's not only OK to fly over these new "restricted" areas (i.e., the airspace below the hard deck), it's mandatory. The challenges I've mentioned--e.g., how to deal with unexpected sink or assess whether you can clear the edge of the airspace many miles ahead--exist with the actual terrain but at least you can see it without looking inside the cockpit every few seconds to check.

As anyone knows who has ever tried to stay under the start cylinder ceiling or climb out the top or climbed up next to P-40 at the R4N contest (FYI: P-40 is the prohibited area over Camp David, which extends out within a very short distance of the last, sun-facing, into-wind slope to climb up on the way home late in the afternoon, and into which the wind tends to drift you unless you keep opening up your circle), this requires a fair amount of attention if the margin is close. I can also see some analogies with the safety finish, which seems to continue to confuse pilots though they seldom encounter it.

Chip Bearden

Chip I only wish that guy was speaking tongue in cheek, regarding no good reasoning against a hard deck, he was serious in his assertions.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:17:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Actually, I've heard sound arguments on both sides of this debate, both sides. Makes me think you're being sarcastic.

I respect John's proposing a concept he believes will help save lives. I originally thought the hard deck was some number above the estimated terrain altitude similar to the Altitude AGL field on my TopHat flight computer (based on the terrain altitudes in the mapping database).

But I think John is proposing big blocks of airspace, SUA style, that establish a horizontal plane over some swath of terrain below which we could not fly without incurring a penalty. That plane might be as little as a few hundred feet or less above a local high point or as much as thousands of feet above low and/or unlandable spots.

Would these new SUAs be different for Standard/15M Class vs. 18 Meter vs. Open Class, since the ability to glide out to a safe landing varies?

One of the challenges (consulting-speak for "problems") I see is navigating over these planes. We wouldn't be able to see them. Perfectly adequate clearance over the terrain under a nice-looking cloud or fast-climbing gaggle might, in fact, be under the hard deck by the time I glide there. Yes, the same is true for actual terrain but at least I can eyeball that on the way and make adjustments (proceed at slower speed, climb in weak lift, turn back).

Under the current rules, the Rules Committee has judged--probably not without reason--that it's unwise to allow us to overfly restricted/controlled airspace because we might not be able to glide out beyond the outer border. So all of those areas extend from their floors up to infinity for scoring purposes; i.e., we can fly under but not over.

The reverse is true in this proposal. It's not only OK to fly over these new "restricted" areas (i.e., the airspace below the hard deck), it's mandatory. The challenges I've mentioned--e.g., how to deal with unexpected sink or assess whether you can clear the edge of the airspace many miles ahead--exist with the actual terrain but at least you can see it without looking inside the cockpit every few seconds to check.

As anyone knows who has ever tried to stay under the start cylinder ceiling or climb out the top or climbed up next to P-40 at the R4N contest (FYI: P-40 is the prohibited area over Camp David, which extends out within a very short distance of the last, sun-facing, into-wind slope to climb up on the way home late in the afternoon, and into which the wind tends to drift you unless you keep opening up your circle), this requires a fair amount of attention if the margin is close. I can also see some analogies with the safety finish, which seems to continue to confuse pilots though they seldom encounter it.

Chip Bearden

SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd.. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.

SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.

This GPS stuff is a fad. I still use a map and compass.

I do have a handful of electronic gadgets. And I even know how to switch them on most of the time. And we have high unlandable plateaus back east. And I've flown a Nationals out of Minden and turned at Truckee and Air Sailing, among other sites.

You've missed a big point: namely, what will my arrival height be vis-a-vis the hard deck? Say the hard deck is at 6,000 MSL. The valley is roughly 5000' MSL, more or less. I'm in the middle of the SUA so I don't care how far away the edge is. I spot a field fire (you have those out west too, at least at Uvalde) about 3-4 miles away. I'm at, say, 6,800' MSL, 800' above the hard deck and about 1,800' above the valley floor. But my glide computer is not much help because unless I can point to a specific spot on the screen and do a GoTo or otherwise see for sure that the fire lies within the amoeba (which, of course, I've reconfigured to account not just for peaks and ridges but also for SUA floors, or maybe it's two amoebas, one for reachable landing spots and another one for reachable hard deck range), I don't know whether I'll bust the hard deck getting to the fire.

It's landable here so in a contest (or even a practice flight if I don't have another thermal), I'll go for the fire, estimating I'll still be 1,000' AGL or so when I get there. But its location is uncertain and, therefore, so is my arrival altitude, especially given a jolt of sink just before I hit 10 kts up in the smoke.

Idle thought: maybe we should allow adjusting the hard deck for total energy, so if you dive down below it but can still pull up over it, you're not penalized. Just a thought!

It's the same glide calculation I have to make now based on the terrain. But I can SEE about what my projected clearance is likely to be and shave it down or augment it based on what's available nearby in which to land. Yes, it takes some experience to do so. Yes, some less experienced pilots will play it conservatively and not run for the fire. That's fine; they're safe. Others will plunge ahead without thinking and might have to land. It sounds harsh but the sensible pilots shouldn't be penalized by preventing them from exercising their experience and being rewarded for it because a few pilots don't exercise care. It's the other side of the coin of "don't penalize me because someone else stupidly flies over Lake Tahoe relying on ridge lift".

It's easier the thermal is marked by a gaggle and some gliders have FLARM because now they're depicted on my map display and I can project (with an extra step for the devices I use) what my arrival height should be.

Back East, there will a movement to convince the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to equip soaring birds with tiny FLARM devices so we can see them on our computer screens and judge whether those low altitude bird saves will incur a penalty.

I think the idea of a hard deck has merit. I'm worried that all of us, including me, are tossing it around without thinking through the real-world problems of implementation. I'm in the technology business. It's very seldom the technology that fails in a project; it's almost always the implementation thereof.

That's why this discussion is valuable. And that's why I think dismissing anyone who offers reasonably informed comments in good faith fashion is a mistake.

BTW, I assume your ability to overfly the Reno Class C (ceiling 8400 MSL per the latest SUA files) without a catastrophic penalty is permitted by a special waiver. SSA Rules for sanctioned contests explicitly prohibit overflying such "closed" airspace, even when transponder equipped.

Chip Bearden

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 4:03:27 PM UTC-8, wrote:
SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.

This GPS stuff is a fad. I still use a map and compass.

I do have a handful of electronic gadgets. And I even know how to switch them on most of the time. And we have high unlandable plateaus back east. And I've flown a Nationals out of Minden and turned at Truckee and Air Sailing, among other sites.

You've missed a big point: namely, what will my arrival height be vis-a-vis the hard deck? Say the hard deck is at 6,000 MSL. The valley is roughly 5000' MSL, more or less. I'm in the middle of the SUA so I don't care how far away the edge is. I spot a field fire (you have those out west too, at least at Uvalde) about 3-4 miles away. I'm at, say, 6,800' MSL, 800' above the hard deck and about 1,800' above the valley floor. But my glide computer is not much help because unless I can point to a specific spot on the screen and do a GoTo or otherwise see for sure that the fire lies within the amoeba (which, of course, I've reconfigured to account not just for peaks and ridges but also for SUA floors, or maybe it's two amoebas, one for reachable landing spots and another one for reachable hard deck range), I don't know whether I'll bust the hard deck getting to the fire.

It's landable here so in a contest (or even a practice flight if I don't have another thermal), I'll go for the fire, estimating I'll still be 1,000' AGL or so when I get there. But its location is uncertain and, therefore, so is my arrival altitude, especially given a jolt of sink just before I hit 10 kts up in the smoke.

Idle thought: maybe we should allow adjusting the hard deck for total energy, so if you dive down below it but can still pull up over it, you're not penalized. Just a thought!

It's the same glide calculation I have to make now based on the terrain. But I can SEE about what my projected clearance is likely to be and shave it down or augment it based on what's available nearby in which to land. Yes, it takes some experience to do so. Yes, some less experienced pilots will play it conservatively and not run for the fire. That's fine; they're safe.. Others will plunge ahead without thinking and might have to land. It sounds harsh but the sensible pilots shouldn't be penalized by preventing them from exercising their experience and being rewarded for it because a few pilots don't exercise care. It's the other side of the coin of "don't penalize me because someone else stupidly flies over Lake Tahoe relying on ridge lift".

It's easier the thermal is marked by a gaggle and some gliders have FLARM because now they're depicted on my map display and I can project (with an extra step for the devices I use) what my arrival height should be.

Back East, there will a movement to convince the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to equip soaring birds with tiny FLARM devices so we can see them on our computer screens and judge whether those low altitude bird saves will incur a penalty.

I think the idea of a hard deck has merit. I'm worried that all of us, including me, are tossing it around without thinking through the real-world problems of implementation. I'm in the technology business. It's very seldom the technology that fails in a project; it's almost always the implementation thereof.

That's why this discussion is valuable. And that's why I think dismissing anyone who offers reasonably informed comments in good faith fashion is a mistake.

BTW, I assume your ability to overfly the Reno Class C (ceiling 8400 MSL per the latest SUA files) without a catastrophic penalty is permitted by a special waiver. SSA Rules for sanctioned contests explicitly prohibit overflying such "closed" airspace, even when transponder equipped.

Chip Bearden

The Reno Class C is a waiver, and has been that way for a long time - maybe a couple of decades? No one has thought it a problem. You don't cross it unless you are high enough, if low you do so at the peril of DSQ. (The limit in races is actually 10,000 ft, so well above the true legal limit). With the computer I use, I would not have a problem determining my glide over the SUA to where ever I am going. It is clearly shown on the flight profile. In fact most of the time the hard deck is well below the working band and is a non-issue.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Yea, go for it and then race with yourself!