Hard Deck

You can't fly a glider the way airlines fly. Airline pilots flying
general aviation aircraft on their days off have the same accident rate
as nonairline pilots. I'm not defending ****ty flying, just pointing out
that the airline model is not applicable outside of the airlines. From
being around the reckless fringes of aviation I think the only method
that improves safety is mockery and social shame. Don't help pilots hide
their stupid, instead openly mock poor piloting decisions. Safety
through bullying. Yes it is unpleasant, that is why it works.

Maybe a feature of each pilots meeting could be an evaluation of the
previous day's landouts (ideally with a projector). I gotta think some of
my patterns would've been better if I knew everyone would be analyzing it
the next day. We could even hand out gold stars.

"Safety through bullying"...haw! (IMO, on-target peer pressure ain't bullying.)

Semantics aside, peer pressure and Darwinism - damn powerful forces!
Resistance is futile!!!

Bob W.

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

In some respects, please don't pick on Blairstown. I have know quite a few that have flown/still fly there. There have been, mostly the last few years, a few real "hard chargers" willing to do some things that I have an issue with.
When they talk to lower time XC pilots and basically say, "oh yeh, sure, suck it up at this transition and you will likely make it.....".
I have seen some local threads by some of these hard chargers and comments on what they consider a decent landing option.
Welllllll......yessssss........that spot is likely better than trees, but marginally so. Even me, with some places I have successfully landed, looked at some of these proposed options and said, "WTF!"?

So maybe a couple peeps with a high tolerance to major risk (usually in someone else's glider) says, fine, go for it, may be setting a poor example.
In general, I wouldn't say Blairstown is high risk.
FWIW......

Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

I think the Hard Deck is pretty much done - I think everyone wants safe flying - but getting it is more than a Hard deck can deliver.

I am not so sure the argument that more pilots would race..... even if it were much more safe (as safe as getting high off the ground with no engine can be)

But I think we all have to realize that the majority of people who enjoy sports do not enjoy competition. Most skiers do not race - most kayak paddlers do not race....... on and on.

I think is our obligation to Soaring to provide access and share our passion - it is all you can ask - I do not think the Hard Deck rule has any impact. Most of the impact I have had has come from listening to Soaring pilots - We don't need to Bully, but we do need to communicate and validate more.

If we're serious about changing behavior.

We will all say we have a hard deck that is pretty high (500+) - let's make it a practice to look at some logs and see how we're really doing. Maybe look at some other thing we all agree we do. Like circling the right direction, passing on the correct side on a ridge day or not pointing our glider at any one whlie flying...

WH

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

yeah, i'd like to see a SUA hard deck file that works for any of new york state... we land on the high ground, we land in the valleys. we also ridge soar 700 feet above the valley floor to make saves. there is no practical way to make a SUA file for Mifflin, Harris hill, blairstown, new hampshire, VT et cetera. the terrain is far too complex. maybe for a place like TSA, Hobbs, Ceasar Creek, or perry, you could implement it, but there are just too many places where you can be thermalling within proximity of higher terrain, while maintaining a good altitude margin above the surrounding area. google Mount pisgah in PA, and imagine a low save 500 feet above the peak of that mountain. there's just no way to make it sensical in areas of complex terrain.

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 2:18:50 PM UTC-8, ND wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

yeah, i'd like to see a SUA hard deck file that works for any of new york state... we land on the high ground, we land in the valleys. we also ridge soar 700 feet above the valley floor to make saves. there is no practical way to make a SUA file for Mifflin, Harris hill, blairstown, new hampshire, VT et cetera. the terrain is far too complex. maybe for a place like TSA, Hobbs, Ceasar Creek, or perry, you could implement it, but there are just too many places where you can be thermalling within proximity of higher terrain, while maintaining a good altitude margin above the surrounding area. google Mount pisgah in PA, and imagine a low save 500 feet above the peak of that mountain. there's just no way to make it sensical in areas of complex terrain.

Not that I'm in favor of the Hard Deck - I remain unconvinced that it materially affects pilot decision making and I think the argument that successful pilots systematically use low thermalling as a tactic has scant evidence to support it. Nevertheless, the above criticisms probably aren't the main ones, or even correct. The idea was to define the hard deck only above the lowest terrain you could reasonably glide to and in discrete steps MSL so it isn't continually varying. So it's not clearance form the ridge below you, it's clearance from the bottom of the nearest, lowest valley. That means there would be no hard deck at ridges higher than 500'.

It probably gets complicated if you need to soar 500' ridges or over wide escarpments adjacent to lower valleys (from what height can you clear the edge, shifting the landout option from on top of the escarpment to the valley?), but those situations are quite a bit rarer. For those of you who have ever flown on a day with morning valley fog with the mountains poking out, it's kind of like that.

As I said, I'm not a fan of the proposal, but we should probably stick to discussion of what was actually proposed or everyone will get confused.

Andy Blackburn
9B

Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.

Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.

John cochrane

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 3:11:40 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose..

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.

Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.

John cochrane

The discussion has focused in on low saves. A low save attempt is the next to last link in a chain of events, the last of which may be a broken glider.. I can't speak for John's idea, but the hard deck I was think of would break that chain back when you could do something about it.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2018 at 1:14:40 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 3:11:40 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.

Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.

John cochrane

The discussion has focused in on low saves. A low save attempt is the next to last link in a chain of events, the last of which may be a broken glider. I can't speak for John's idea, but the hard deck I was think of would break that chain back when you could do something about it.

Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.

T8

T8: Part of what's being tested every time we go XC soaring (never mind competition) is the ability to assess and manage risk. I relish this. If you take this out of the game... well, it's no longer the same game.


Are you f...ing kidding? You voluntarily enjoy the ability to assess and manage physical risk.. and by definition to occasionally fail with potentially fatal results? What is this, aviation or climbing Mt. Everest?

Anyway, fear not dear T8. Even with a hard deck, you will still be flying a motorless aircraft, and there will be plenty of opportunity for you to scare yourself silly even though you no longer will get contest points for it.. We'll even still give you points for flying in clouds, through thunderstorms, over unlandable terrain, shoot mountain passes with 10 feet to spare, and so forth. And the risk of losing points at 500 or 1000 feet might still be enough to keep you awake, though the hard ground won't give you quite the rush it used to.

I mean, really, of all the illogic on this thread, the idea that no longer giving contest points for what a pilot chooses to do under 500 or 1000 feet AGL, removes all risk from motorless aviation, so the pilot no longer has to "assess and manage risk" is the most ludicrous. You might as well argue that we remove parachutes, so pilots get more of the adrenaline rush of assessing and managing risks.

Oppose a hard deck if you will, but please bring some faint common sense, thought and logic to the discussion

John Cochrane