Hard Deck

On Wednesday, February 7, 2018 at 9:39:29 PM UTC-5, Karl Striedieck wrote:
For this hard deck scheme to work (land off airport if below a certain agl altitude) a major penalty would need to be imposed for not doing so. Simply "landing" the pilot at the low spot would give the same score as climbing away and returning to the evening meal at the airport. Who's going to pass up a climb out marked by a bird, vario or whatever thus avoiding all the dangers of an outlanding when there is no advantage to doing so?

KS

my point exactly Karl! the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs.

If the idea is to discourage low saves because of the potential for stall/spin at a low altitude and not wanting to encourage risk for points. Fine we are trying to save lives. After the scored landout the pilot figures to dig out and fly home. While trying the glider augurs in, ship destroyed and pilot dead. How is this different than taking the same risk for points is on the contest and if after the scored landout the pilot decides to take the same risk to get home but this is okay because they died trying to avoid inconvenience and not gather a few points. The death is not on the contest but the PIC's poor decision? Taking risks is always relative and even with data the number of deaths from botching a low save are so few compared to other aspects of the flight (starts and finishes) trying to regulate for such low probability is a waste of effort.

It seems like the pilots were injured screwing up the landings. If we want safer contests we should stop debating rules to stop minuscule aspects of the sport and put real effort into teaching pilots how to safely land the glider in unfamiliar territory.

Too often pilots land at home and roll up to the trailer for convenience. Maybe landing in such a way to simulate an off field landing and suffer the inconvenience of having to get the ship with a golf cart might help. A club mate trying to save time decided to land long and roll back to the departure. Glidervended up across the raid in a ditch. No damage or injury but prevenatable and stupid.

Every time we fly we are training ourselves how to act in a situation. Convenience should NEVER enter into our decision making process but when pilots routinely land at home with convenience in mind it becomes part of the equation.

We, the Soaring community, need more and better training much more then rules.

OK.......simple example.......
The Elmira/HHSC "Snowbird" contest.
No cross country.
The rules are mostly based on "exact time" and "spot landing/parking".
Some minor bonus points for altitude gain (although this may mean pilots are doing spins back down to gain more accumulated altitude points, which may be a tie breaker....yes, I have done this.)

Over many years (decades) this has been fine tuned, emphasizing "energy management" to cover the first 2 goals (time and spot landing/parking).

Yes, I am biased......having done well over the years, my group (Valley Soaring in Middletown, NY) as well as personal.
Interesting to see the peeps that are used to, "land wherever, roll to wherever, push it to where we want" vs., "practice putting into a field" which to me is a major part of the goal.
I believe many "long time flyers" as well as CFIG-s at our field drill this into students and above, all the time.

When I was an active CFI-G, part of the private test was, "landing, stopping within 200', but not past, of a predetermined mark".
I read that as, "I could land rather fast, roll 1/2 mile, stop within 200' but don't go by it".
Sorta poor training.

You can search for the Snowbird rules, there should be a link to the "landing portion" for scoring.
Should give some here some pause.

While waiting late to decide to land is poor judgement, not really knowing how to put the aircraft "exactly" where you want when you want is a major recipe for broken bits.
Taken from someone that has helped FIX broken bits later as well as watch pilots wait until their broken bits mend (assuming they survived in the first place, been there as well.....sigh....).

I won't weigh in on whether any "hard deck" will Improve crash/death numbers, I will say it won't really make a difference to me.
I have been "too low before", but no clue on when that decision could have been made. At least a few times, crap happened with weather/geography that I totally missed and I was in a bad spot.
Points didn't matter, not breaking the sailplane was paramount. Sailplane not broken, worst I had was soiled underwear.

So please, read the scoring for the HHSC Snowbird, ask yourself, "How do I think I would do?".
As an aside, on a good weekend, if you are NOT scoring around 950+ points/flight, you are looking at 4th or lower.



PS, I should answer the question in another active thread, last 20 or so contest years (went up from 10 since I have not been real active recently), worst glider damage was torn gear door hinges in a 20 landing in a potato field. Glider was flying the next day. Foliage stains are not counted as damage.
Hoping I don't do anything real stupid in the foreseeable future......doing my best, hoping to guide others along the way.

"my point exactly Karl! the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs. "

Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!

John cochrane

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 7:37:52 PM UTC, John Cochrane wrote

Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!

John cochrane

The point of the hard deck surely is to try to prevent something; to try to prevent pilots from going lower than the hard deck. Once below it they are out of the game and how they then try to get home would be up to them. The question is how might the presence of the hard deck below affect the decision making of pilots flying above it - particularly those who find themselves close to dropping under it and so incurring a technical land out?

John, it is not incentivizing taking risk by adding a penalty for doing so. Punitive measures will not prevent bad decisions made 30 minutes prior. Incentivize things by adding points to stay above a hard deck. Carrot v stick type thing. Insurance companies realize they pay less claims when you reduce rates for safe driving. Legislating against stupidity doesn't work too well. Making rules for an occasional stupid decision adds complexity for no real gain. Pilots have died in contests and flying and they will continue to do so regardless of rules. We can save more lives by good training and practicing safe flight management so when we screw up it results in a good story. Safety is a process and worrying about outcome takes us away from being in the process and making the right decision for the next step in the process which if followed results in the desired outcome. glidets can be replaced, people cannot. My view is the glider is absolutely expendable if destroying it removes energy and saves lives of people in the aircraft and on the ground. Do I want to wreck the ship? Not at all but allowing for this let's me focus on the process of being able to tell the story of how I lived and bought another ship. This is my choice just as it is for a racing pilot to take a risk on a low save for points. If this pilot has such an inflated ego or lack of respect for his friends and family to take excessive risk to win a contest only he really cares about then let them as long as their actions don't interfere with others. Safety rules should be put into place where the action of one can effect another. If a pilot wants to risk their own life we should let them.

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
"my point exactly Karl! the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs. "

Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!

John cochrane

but so i don't understand john, that sounds a little flimsy or at the very least downright bureaucratic. pardon me for seeming obstinate, but if the hard deck doesn't prevent anything, and people will still have low level mishaps, then the hard deck won't improve contest safety records. if it doesn't do that, then why complicate things with this proposed rule? simply in the name of absolving the competition rules of blame? that's absurd.

anyway, we already have to sign a "WAIVER OF CLAIMS, ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY, AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT". that's me the pilot saying that i'm legally responsible for my actions and their consequences.

the person to blame for getting smoked by circling at low altitude is always the PIC, never the rules or the contest organizers. the rules never force my hand to do anything.

Amen ND

BB,

You’ve said several times now (and I agree) that the effect of the hard deck isn’t to reduce incidents of pilots attempting low saves - but you have also said it’s purpose is to eliminate the points incentive for doing so. Since we’ve reasonably established that there’s no competitive advantage to be gained from deliberately planning to go that low I find myself stuck on what the benefit is. Reducing an incentive that you admit won’t alter behavior o outcomes seems like an incentive with zero effect and therefore meaningless from a rule-making perspective.

Help me out - what’s the purpose of eliminating an incentive that’s so dominated by other factors that it doesn’t drive behavior or outcomes?

9B

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 4:14:49 PM UTC-5, Andy Blackburn wrote:
BB,

You’ve said several times now (and I agree) that the effect of the hard deck isn’t to reduce incidents of pilots attempting low saves - but you have also said it’s purpose is to eliminate the points incentive for doing so. Since we’ve reasonably established that there’s no competitive advantage to be gained from deliberately planning to go that low I find myself stuck on what the benefit is. Reducing an incentive that you admit won’t alter behavior o outcomes seems like an incentive with zero effect and therefore meaningless from a rule-making perspective.

Help me out - what’s the purpose of eliminating an incentive that’s so dominated by other factors that it doesn’t drive behavior or outcomes?

9B

Boom goes the dynamite^ well said.