Hard Deck

Thanks for the numbers.

One logical conclusion: Therefore, not giving contest points for racing under 500-1000 feet will have negligible effects on the sporting outcome of the contest.

John Cochrane

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:59:31 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Thanks for the numbers.

One logical conclusion: Therefore, not giving contest points for racing under 500-1000 feet will have negligible effects on the sporting outcome of the contest.

John Cochrane

That's what I was thinking. If it basically never happens (more data would be nice), there's little to no cost in terms of contest results. Would be interesting to look at some of those mass landout hopeless WGC days (I'm sure BB remembers Szeged!) to see if those with lower minimums really benefited. After I recover maybe I'll give that a shot. I hope no one has lowered their minimum to 100 ft based on this thread, then this was all for nothing!

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 2:44:27 PM UTC-8, Clay wrote:
On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:59:31 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Thanks for the numbers.

One logical conclusion: Therefore, not giving contest points for racing under 500-1000 feet will have negligible effects on the sporting outcome of the contest.

John Cochrane

That's what I was thinking. If it basically never happens (more data would be nice), there's little to no cost in terms of contest results. Would be interesting to look at some of those mass landout hopeless WGC days (I'm sure BB remembers Szeged!) to see if those with lower minimums really benefited. After I recover maybe I'll give that a shot. I hope no one has lowered their minimum to 100 ft based on this thread, then this was all for nothing!

It would be interesting to see that analysis done over a wider group. To keep from doing too much work, I'd think that all pilots, on slow days (particularly when there were a high percentage landouts) would be enough. Faster days when everyone made it back are unlikely to have low saves, or if there were, the problem was more specific to the pilot than the contest.

"It would be interesting to see that analysis done over a wider group. To keep from doing too much work, I'd think that all pilots, on slow days (particularly when there were a high percentage landouts) would be enough. Faster days when everyone made it back are unlikely to have low saves, or if there were, the problem was more specific to the pilot than the contest."

I wonder who has more significant crashes, newbies or experience pilots. For what ever reason, as I sit here thinking, most of the serious to fatal crashes I can think of had been pilots with allot of experience.

I had heard that when you get to around 500 hours you need extra caution - it is enough to believe you have the skill but not enough to forget what got you there.

WH

Bill, I thought it was 100hrs, but, whatever.
Yes, complacency and, "I can do that" possibly coupled with, "I got away with it before, surely I can do it yet another time....".

As I said before, rules can't fix stupid. Whether a one time bad decision for whatever reason, or a symptom of poor judgement (that hopefully others locally point out on the side.....), rules don't fix stupid.
Continued training does.
Calling out someone to the CD/CM at a contest, talking to high time pilots/CFIG's locally "may" change someone's thought patterns.
Maybe not.
You know me, you know the active CFIG's at your home field, if you feel there is an issue, go talk to them.

"rules can't fix stupid." we hear that over and over. But it is amazing that when there are points on the table, stupid seems to blossom like mushrooms after a rain. And then vanish the moment we go home and points are off the table. Rules can reward stupid. Or not.

John Cochrane

John, you agree or not?
I'm going from the "lottery" of picking start times before 9am to sorta current rules.
I won't say I haven't done sorta stupid stuff in the past, I will say stupid stuff "usually" won't win a US contest.
So.......right back at ya........

Not arguing one way or the other, just voicing my opinion.

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 1:41:45 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
But it is amazing that when there are points on the table, stupid seems to blossom like mushrooms after a rain. And then vanish the moment we go home and points are off the table.

We've seen all that at wave camp.

I think we have many pilots with an odd, and I would say "defective" sense of risk management, one that says it's okay to stack on a lot more risk when flying for objectives. Encapsulated nicely by the guy you and I both know that says of final glides, in a nearly theatrical manner, "They are SUPPOSED to be dangerous!". The guy that thinks like this (and he has company) is going to find ways to put himself in dangerous situations under performance pressure regardless of rules. The high finish probably has been beneficial to safety... although I can think of three serious crashes just at one contest site that followed 500' or higher finishes.

In our club, we're putting extra effort on risk assessment / risk management, along with a "train like you fight, fight like you train" philosophy towards flying for objectives. I doubt very much that we will transform the sport, but perhaps we can plant some seeds for the future.

Evan Ludeman / T8

On Friday, February 2, 2018 at 4:59:31 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Thanks for the numbers.

One logical conclusion: Therefore, not giving contest points for racing under 500-1000 feet will have negligible effects on the sporting outcome of the contest.

John Cochrane


John is absolutely right - we ought to implement a bunch of similarly useless rules. Just a few that leap to mind:

- 100 pt penalty for running with wing-tape scissors.
- 50 pt penalty for failure to yield to traffic approaching from the right while gridding
- 500 pt penalty plus public shaming for any pilot caught wearing white shoes at a contest before Memorial Day or after Labor Day.