Hard Deck

Stupid stuff usually does not win contests. Our winners are tremendously talented pilots. Occasional sporting risks are part of the game. One landout, aborted flight through thunderstorm, etc. will lose a contest. So, usually, avoid such problems. But when you have to go, you have to go.

The hard deck case is not about winners doing dumb things while the rest of us sane people sit around and grumble. It's about the many risks that non-winners seem to take when the points clock is on, and do not take when the points clock is off.

It's an interesting contrast. Everywhere else in aviation we seem to have this concept. Minimums for an IFR approach, or you go around, are pretty hard and fast. I don't see vast complaining about this encroachment on the pilots' freedom or judgement.

The FAA's rule which is even a law against busting minimums, with penalties.. The hard deck proposes no such force or penalty. It would be as if airlines gave pilots a $1000 bonus for landing on time, no matter what the weather, and we are proposing, hey, why don't we take the bonus off the table when reported cloudbase is below 500 feet.

John Cochrane

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 2:28:59 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Stupid stuff usually does not win contests. Our winners are tremendously talented pilots. Occasional sporting risks are part of the game. One landout, aborted flight through thunderstorm, etc. will lose a contest. So, usually, avoid such problems. But when you have to go, you have to go.

We (Aero Club Albatross - Blairstown, NJ) have had an atrocious record over the last 10 or so years. We've had at least 10 gliders seriously damaged or destroyed over that time period during field landings. None of these was during a contest. Many of them were during ridge flights, but not all. And we've had several that were incredibly close to being accidents. Not a single one was a record flight or had any "points" on the line.

I would submit that the problem isn't a scoring or points problem, but an airmanship problem.

P3

On Saturday, February 3, 2018 at 2:28:59 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Stupid stuff usually does not win contests. Our winners are tremendously talented pilots. Occasional sporting risks are part of the game. One landout, aborted flight through thunderstorm, etc. will lose a contest. So, usually, avoid such problems. But when you have to go, you have to go.

The hard deck case is not about winners doing dumb things while the rest of us sane people sit around and grumble. It's about the many risks that non-winners seem to take when the points clock is on, and do not take when the points clock is off.

It's an interesting contrast. Everywhere else in aviation we seem to have this concept. Minimums for an IFR approach, or you go around, are pretty hard and fast. I don't see vast complaining about this encroachment on the pilots' freedom or judgement.

The FAA's rule which is even a law against busting minimums, with penalties. The hard deck proposes no such force or penalty. It would be as if airlines gave pilots a $1000 bonus for landing on time, no matter what the weather, and we are proposing, hey, why don't we take the bonus off the table when reported cloudbase is below 500 feet.

John Cochrane

John,

I disagree that folks at 500 feet are thinking about points. in your safety analysis posted very far above, you showed a guy thermalling very low in stone valley, just to the northwest side of stone mountain. i've landed out there before. the guy wasn't circling at 400 feet thinking, "gee i better make this work or i'll lose all those speed points." he was thinking he better make that bubble work because he had nowhere else to go. his landing options were poor, he wasn't fighting for points, he was trying to stay out of a field. a hard deck doesn't accomplish anything to stop this situation from evolving.

points are on people's minds at 1500 feet when they think "man, i'm out of a good working band, and this is gonna slow me down." 1000 feet later, they aren't thinking about points anymore. any sensible pilot has already been thinking about landing options, and has a plan in mind. if it's a rock solid plan they might try circling. if it's not, they still might try circling, because it's more attractive than what's on the ground. the presence of a hard deck doesn't factor into the decision making process here.

for one reason or another, people will still attempt circles below it, guaranteed. So if it isn't correcting a safety related behavior, and we agree that it won't affect the scoresheet very much, what does a hard deck accomplish, and what's the point?

for me it's a different discussion from the finish line thing. i mentioned it earlier, but i'm throwing that aside, not least because it's still possible to have one. i keep responding because i don't think the hard deck solves any problem at all. what would be more effective would be a powerpoint presentation at the contest briefing about low saves, circling low, safety, and know areas of chancy landing options. maybe with a few pictures of broken gliders, nasty fields people had to squeeze into, and x-rays of a broken collarbone from a groundloop after a rushed forced landing. in particular there's a youtube video of a really last minute pattern and scary landing floating around. this sort of media is a better motivator than someone being reminded halfway through their pattern that they just lost all their points. i'll smash the SUA warning on downwind, going, "yeah great, thanks john, don't care right now."

Because that's what's going to happen. the majority of folks will get a SUA warning halfway through their pattern. they will have already committed to landing. is that the kind of distraction you want to introduce into the cockpit when there are much more pressing matters to attend to?

I think its a no-brainer.

it's hard to convey tone-of-voice online. Written with all due respect!

ND