Hard Deck

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 1:55:11 PM UTC-6, jfitch wrote:
My preference would be a steering turn at Marlette lake with a bottom of 10,200', which amounts to a 40:1 to the 8000' finish, and would keep most everyone from the temptation to try the water temperature in Lake Tahoe in pursuit of a win.

How big a radius would you need at Market Lake to keep the low guys from attempting to go straight to the back side of Martis Peak for a climb to get high enough to make the steering turn? 10-15 miles? If you set that radius would anybody risk going further west (hugging the outside of the steering turn radius) if they were below 10,200'? If it's 10,200' with a big radius do you have to hold 10,200' everywhere within the radius? The gets you to about 1 mile from the finish.

An alternate approach might be a 10,500' finish height with a 15 mile radius, though I expect that might create it's own challenges. That would let you finish on the east side of Mt Rose and land at Carson.

9B

Jon Fitch: You are burdened with a view of off-field landing that is distorted. I can see that in many things you've been writing and suggesting. We should have a separate thread about how to pick fields and make good off-field landings. I know a guy that has made maybe 75 or more off field landings on farm fields, pastures, parking lots, golf courses, gas stations, backyards, roads, and dry lakes. He's a lucky damn ******* for sure but the only off-airport damage he's ever had is a tweaked gear once (which still worked) due to a deep track in a circle field. Landing off field is just part of soaring. Actually, it's a fun part of soaring.

Jon: I stand corrected. Silly me, having only flown two weeks out of Truckee, the idea of squaring over the pass and then thermaling up to finish at the hot rocks never occurred to me. Yes

Steve: Off field landings are all well and good, but there is simply nowhere to land on the north side of the Lake Tahoe basin. Zero, zilch, nada. One landing has been made on the golf course, but it looks mighty chancy to say nothing of the golfers.

Both: The general idea of a last turnpoint with minimum altitude, as practiced in the SGP, has a lot of merit, when there are no good fields close to the airport for blown final glides. It would also allow finish lines such as we had at Uvalde without some of the amazingly close calls we also had at Uvalde.

John cochrane

Steve: Off field landings are all well and good, but there is simply nowhere to land on the north side of the Lake Tahoe basin. Zero, zilch, nada. One landing has been made on the golf course, but it looks mighty chancy to say nothing of the golfers.

Both: The general idea of a last turnpoint with minimum altitude, as practiced in the SGP, has a lot of merit, when there are no good fields close to the airport for blown final glides. It would also allow finish lines such as we had at Uvalde without some of the amazingly close calls we also had at Uvalde.

John cochrane

Yes, John I know that. I wasn't responding to Jon's post about crossing the lake (We were typing at the same time I guess). Landing out surely always requires a place that's suitable.

Jumping to the problem of what to do about Truckee... How about simply using a 30 mi finish cylinder. That would allow us to have a full day racing task there. If you can't get home due to west wind washout, you just land Minden or Carson without any disrupting effect on the scoresheet and without any daredevil temptations. The tugs at Minden would be set on ready alert for late hour missions or next morning missions if you bring your toothbrush. Or, for the crewed amongst us, crews might even be pre-dispatched to Minden. Just a thought.

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 2:12:32 PM UTC-6, Steve Koerner wrote:
Landing off field is just part of soaring.

I agree Steve - every time one takes off, they need to be prepared for an off field landing.

Actually, it's a fun part of soaring.

Not for me - besides the increased risk, it is a total pain in the ass. Time, retrieve, disassembly in a field, etc. Did I mention lost contest points

I think the risk of landing out is a key "turn off" for potential soaring pilots and potential contest pilots. (Maybe#1.)

I am a huge fan of the training one gets through the SSA Badge process.

Lou

Yes, a lot of the point of hard deck is to move the whole decision-making chain upward. Now you treat 2000' AGL as you used to treat 1000' AGL, at least for sporting purposes.

On whether it actually will change behavior, this thread has produced a classic example of cognitive dissonance -- holding two contrary ideas in mind at one time.

A) No pilot is so dumb they're thinking about points below 1000'. (Both positive and negative -- the lure of getting home is so strong they will screw around down low without points, and pilots are so sensible they wouldn't screw around down low just for points)

B) Pilots will spend all their time watching the instruments trying to figure out if they have busted the minimum. Just to draw out the logic, that behavior only results if you think that pilots indeed are concerned entirely about points, and making all decisions at 550 feet with that in mind.

General: We have spent too much time on "low saves." That's really not the issue. As I looked at many traces of off field landing accidents in contests, what's clearly going on is very low and late decision making. Whether hoping for a low save or for other reasons, failing to follow the usual advice that below 600 feet forget about everything else and land is the key issue. In not one of the traces I have seen - which all ended in damage -- did the pilot start a sensible downwind at 600 feet, base, final. It's all mad dash low altitude and low speed maneuvering.


John Cochrane

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, 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

John,

It's not a question of staring incessantly at your screen. it's about having a SUA warning go "BUUH-REEEEE! ...AIRSPACE..." when you are at 500 feet (ostensibly 3/4 of the way through downwind). it's a legitimate distraction, no question.

Descending through 500 AGL on downwind:

"BUUH-REEEEEE!"

"****! was that my gear warning??" *cycles gear back UP unknowingly*

It sounds silly, but you know in a tense moment we do stupid things and get confused. i once saw a guy land in the same field as me, come to a stop, and pull his gear up.

i know harris hill is just one site, but there are many with similarities. to your point about hobbs perry et cet. flatland becomes simple. but at sites with slope-y terrain, why is it OK to cirlce within 500 feet of high ground with a valley close-by, but not down in the valleys? the hard deck doesn't protect you from stall/spin at sloping sites like NY,PA,VA,VT,UT,CA,NV if you're low over high ground. and there are lots of locations where you can be circling at 400 feet over a hilltop field, with a valley close by. copy and paste this link below and look what's 1.7 miles southwest of my marked location. i circled at 500 feet above the field i have marked. That's no different in terms of stall spin, than doing it in the valley. the only difference is that if i lost 100 feet i could glide out to the valley and be over an airport. but a spin right there coulda had me sleeping with the fishes:

,1355m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m9!1m2!2m1!1scostas+airport!3m5!1s0 x0:0x0!7e2!8m2!3d42.2037464!4d-77.111644!5m1!1e4

the hard deck does nothing to protect you in this situation. so i question it's overall effectiveness. if you look at a valley fog satellite loop for somewhere like harris hill, you'll realize just what a small percentage of the contest site you are covering with the hard deck in the half-dozen states i mention above. it leaves plenty of opportunities for low circling over landable non-ridge terrain.



but let's go back to flat sites. those places generally have a wide selection of large fields. this year at hobbs i landed in a field that was a no brainer in terms of size and obstructions, but it was SOFT. late in the day when it's calm, i think you'd find people cirlcing low to stay out of the field, hard deck or not. at flat land sites where the options are poor, (Hobbs, west) you could find people circling low to stay out of nasty terrain in what i'll call panic mode. it happened this year in fact.

My point isn't that a hard deck is stupid, or for nancies, or even that "this is another silly cochrane rule" (forgive me for that one, and please take it in the spirit in which it was intended). that IS how i felt at first, truly. but now, having considered the hard deck from many angles, and what it does/doesn't do, i don't think it prevents the circumstances people end up in, or their low altitude behavior. i think it just punishes them for it.. but as a punishment it doesn't prevent that behavior in the moment or even in the future.


i reiterate, 500 feet is quite low. but i've done it under certain conditions. a hard deck won't stop people from making low circles.

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 5:11:40 PM UTC-6, 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 think I see your intent, John, but I think you oversimplify "flatland" a bit too much.

Taking Hobbs and Uvalde as examples of your "flatland", one single MSL altitude would not be a good idea. Hobbs is at 3707 MSL. Big Spring is often used, and it is at 2573, or about 1100 feet lower. Portales is at 4078, so a bit over 300 feet higher, and about 1500 feet higher than the low area.

Using Uvalde, at 942 MSL, with Sonora at 2140 and Uno Mas at 380, again, over 1500 elevation difference between the low and high ends of the task area.

Not saying it can't be done, but it will not be a simple "one altitude MSL hard deck" unless it is above normal tow release altitude over the low ground to keep it high enough to eliminate low circling for points over the high ground. We may not have much contour change here in the center of the US, but we are not level. :-)

I do applaud your analysis of the data and attempts to find ways to make cross country racing safer. I wish there was a simple answer, but I don't think a hard deck is acceptable even as a complex answer.

My .02
Steve Leonard
Flat Lander (but not a Flat Earther)

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, 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

John,

like it or not/agree or not,

i also see pilots cirlcing at 550 feet, pulling and milking like hell, maneuvering aggressively, close to stall trying to stop themselves from getting DQ'd by nicking,or sliding down into the hard-deck, further provoking an impending stall close to terrain. i know, it sounds absurd, but people will do it, flat land or not.

it's those unintended consequences... i think the hard deck creates some problems, and solves none.

ND

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 6:11:40 PM UTC-5, 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

Its been a long thread but I think these are all new points / questions.

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.

See Steve Leonard's post. Even over "flatlands" turn point / terrain can very by hundreds (even more than a thousand) feet. Also, are we going to have some sites with hard deck and others without?


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..

Except now you have people looking down at their flight computers when close to terrain (likely under 2 minutes until you need to climb out or land). Take your Mifflin carve out example. ****, I'm going to hit the hard deck, but if I fly towards the ridge there won't be a hard deck and I'll do that. Now I'm at the ridge, its not working and I've left myself no options to land.


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.

Nope, I just think this adds significant complexity without any data supporting it that it adds in any way to safety. I can't say I follow every accident religiously, but the last stall / spin into terrain from low level that comes to mind recently is more than 10 years ago (Peter Masak at Mifflin) which your proposal would not have prevented. I really enjoy alot of your economics work - you're probably one of the top center-right economists of your generation. But you base that work on data, and I just don't think you have any data to support your proposal other than "I think this is a good idea." Thats the nonsensical argument Paul Krugman puts into the NYT on a regular basis .


John cochrane