Hard Deck

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 1:14:49 PM UTC-8, 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

There are two separate aspects to the hard deck. One is to attempt to prevent some behavior. This is in my opinion a fools errand. The other is to keep from tempting others to that behavior who would not ordinarily engage, because it is rewarded with a win. You have invested a week or two weeks and 2000 miles of driving into a contest. You are doing well on the 13th day, but choose not to thermal at 500 ft and land out. Another pilot circles in the same spot at 400 ft and gets away, thrashing you on points that day.

There are numerous stories up thread about this happening.

The direction of encouragement is towards the most risky behavior that survives. We are bottom fishing the behavior continuum for trophies. If the pilot gets away from 400 ft, he doesn't need a retrieve, but the pilot that gave up at 500 ft shouldn't be punished by 5 places in the standings because he chose prudence. The problem in my view is not that saving from 400 ft is slow, there is no doubt about that. But it is very fast compared to a landout, as scored by our points system. On a day when everyone gets back, the couple of guys who dug out from 400 ft are likely way down the board. On a day when they are the only guys who made it back, they place 1 and 2.

There is a secondary aspect: I believe one really should be able to practice for competition. If the 400 ft save is part of competition, then 400 ft thermalling needs to be practiced. I'd like to see an attempt to round up 5 unacquainted instructors from across the country, with a financial interest in their 2 place trainer, who would gladly give instruction in 400 ft saves over say 10 randomly chosen, unfamiliar landing sites. I'll submit you cannot find those, because it will be deemed too dangerous. If it is too dangerous to practice, why is it allowed in competition?

I think I read "only" 150 of the 263 prior posts here, so my apologies if the following arguments have already been made:

The proposed hard deck would in some cases reduce, but not remove the motivation for attempting a low save. In most cases it wouldn't make any difference to what the pilot decides to do.

In cases where there are significant patches of unlandable terrain (for example around Eprata, WA), having to consider the hard deck when deciding on the best course of action at a low altitude could significantly increase pilot's workload and stress level.

For an inexperienced pilot, flying a task with a hard deck programmed into the flight computer may offer a false sense of extra security, especially when flying over patches of unlandable terrain.

Considering only the above three safety aspects of the hard deck, I would say that its unintended consequences would most likely outweigh gains. So, even without considering a number non-safety related issues that many have expressed in this thread, from rules being already too complex all the way to Nancy Pelosi, I'd say that the hard deck idea is not something that should be implemented.

Focusing on pilot training and having knowledgeable and reasonable people (i.e., no big egos) in charge of contest management is the best way improve contest safety, like they do in at Region 8 in Ephrata (and many other sites that I haven't been to).

Branko Stojkovic
XYU

“There are two separate aspects to the hard deck. One is to attempt to prevent some behavior. This is in my opinion a fools errand.�

I think we agree on that.

“The other is to keep from tempting others to that behavior who would not ordinarily engage, because it is rewarded with a win.....You are doing well on the 13th day, but choose not to thermal at 500 ft and land out. Another pilot circles in the same spot at 400 ft and gets away, thrashing you on points that day.

There are numerous stories up thread about this happening.�

That seems to contradict point #1. Either it is an effective disincentive or it isn’t. I also dispute that people thermal low in valleys and win (590’ above the valleys is where the hard deck applies - unless you want them higher up and more broadly which wasn’t BB’s proposal, though it may be yours). I also dispute the assertion that neophytes are somehow mimicking low thermalling (in valley bottoms) as an explicit copy-cat strategy that regularly moves them up places - at least not at the 350-500 foot range where the hard deck as proposed applies.

I think what some pilots do in my experience is head out over sketchy areas - maybe chasing a cloud - and guys like me refuse to go. I have many examples climbing at 2-knots at the edge of a glide to the last good field while a bunch of other pilots head several more miles into boony-town to snag an 8-knotter. Never were any of us less than 2000’ from the ground. I just don’t see a practical way to go through a task area and make judgments about where the last good field is and how much is a safe glide angle under any of a range of wind and weather conditions for the purpose of setting up a hard deck. We can’t even get organizers to systematically vet waypoint files for that sort of thing, though some occasionally try (Andy looks at his watch and wonders how long it will be before Ron Gleason rings in).

The place where there seems to be some traction is in a few cases where there is a clear hazard in a task area and risky behavior can save either many tens of minutes or a landout. Here some targeted task design or use of .sua files might make everyone a bit safer and happier. Truckee is the one example that a lot of people seem to agree about - there may be others. The trick there is getting a good design that doesn’t create new problems.. BTW it’s not clear to me that a 15-mile finish would guarantee that fewer people finish - maybe just on days where finishing requires taking the elevator low. That’s probably a good thing. Take the elevator after you finish if it’s within you margin of safety.

Andy - 9B

On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 5:18:01 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
“There are two separate aspects to the hard deck. One is to attempt to prevent some behavior. This is in my opinion a fools errand.�

I think we agree on that.

“The other is to keep from tempting others to that behavior who would not ordinarily engage, because it is rewarded with a win.....You are doing well on the 13th day, but choose not to thermal at 500 ft and land out.. Another pilot circles in the same spot at 400 ft and gets away, thrashing you on points that day.

There are numerous stories up thread about this happening.�

That seems to contradict point #1. Either it is an effective disincentive or it isn’t. I also dispute that people thermal low in valleys and win (590’ above the valleys is where the hard deck applies - unless you want them higher up and more broadly which wasn’t BB’s proposal, though it may be yours). I also dispute the assertion that neophytes are somehow mimicking low thermalling (in valley bottoms) as an explicit copy-cat strategy that regularly moves them up places - at least not at the 350-500 foot range where the hard deck as proposed applies.

I think what some pilots do in my experience is head out over sketchy areas - maybe chasing a cloud - and guys like me refuse to go. I have many examples climbing at 2-knots at the edge of a glide to the last good field while a bunch of other pilots head several more miles into boony-town to snag an 8-knotter. Never were any of us less than 2000’ from the ground. I just don’t see a practical way to go through a task area and make judgments about where the last good field is and how much is a safe glide angle under any of a range of wind and weather conditions for the purpose of setting up a hard deck. We can’t even get organizers to systematically vet waypoint files for that sort of thing, though some occasionally try (Andy looks at his watch and wonders how long it will be before Ron Gleason rings in).

The place where there seems to be some traction is in a few cases where there is a clear hazard in a task area and risky behavior can save either many tens of minutes or a landout. Here some targeted task design or use of .sua files might make everyone a bit safer and happier. Truckee is the one example that a lot of people seem to agree about - there may be others. The trick there is getting a good design that doesn’t create new problems. BTW it’s not clear to me that a 15-mile finish would guarantee that fewer people finish - maybe just on days where finishing requires taking the elevator low. That’s probably a good thing. Take the elevator after you finish if it’s within you margin of safety.

Andy - 9B

As pointed out several times, some will circle at 300' to avoid a retrieve even if scored a landout at 500'. There have been several anecdotes related up thread of people doing a low save and going on to win.

But my main problem is the "heading out over sketchy areas" and has little to do with 500' saves. I've seen it many times and this is the worry expressed by my non-racing pilot friends. A rule discouraging that might encourage a closer look at viable landing sites pre-contest and that would be a good thing. Many out west which look good on paper or from the air will soil your pants if you walk the ground.

30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:31:25 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.

My typo - I meant return to Truckee.

You could have the finish at 10,000' MSL & 15 miles which is ~35:1 to the edge of the normal finish cylinder. Sort of a permanent safety finish.

9B

All this hard deck discussion is giving me a soft deck. I am going to start a new discussion on dreams

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:03:13 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:31:25 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.

My typo - I meant return to Truckee.

You could have the finish at 10,000' MSL & 15 miles which is ~35:1 to the edge of the normal finish cylinder. Sort of a permanent safety finish.

9B

Yes, that's how I was thinking of it -- a permanent safety finish. Set the diameter and height such that it is not essential to return to Truckee valley for a finish yet will not make it significantly more difficult to complete a return to the cool pines if you don't have a motor. We could even set the finish ring all the out to the Pinenuts. That would be odd and unusual. But odd and unusual isn't a reason not to do it when it solves two big problems.

Woke up this morning and for the first time in weeks (months?), there were NO NEW "HARD DECK" POSTS. It couldn't last. And didn't. But we're close, I think, now that we all agree.

Chip Bearden

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:17:54 AM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 10:03:13 AM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 11:31:25 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:

30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.

My typo - I meant return to Truckee.

You could have the finish at 10,000' MSL & 15 miles which is ~35:1 to the edge of the normal finish cylinder. Sort of a permanent safety finish.

9B

Yes, that's how I was thinking of it -- a permanent safety finish. Set the diameter and height such that it is not essential to return to Truckee valley for a finish yet will not make it significantly more difficult to complete a return to the cool pines if you don't have a motor. We could even set the finish ring all the out to the Pinenuts. That would be odd and unusual. But odd and unusual isn't a reason not to do it when it solves two big problems.

Yeah, that would do it. The last 15 miles are pretty much skill free anyway, so not measuring much except the performance of your glider.

But my main problem is the "heading out over sketchy areas" and has little
to do with 500' saves. I've seen it many times and this is the worry
expressed by my non-racing pilot friends. A rule discouraging that might
encourage a closer look at viable landing sites pre-contest and that would
be a good thing. Many out west which look good on paper or from the air
will soil your pants if you walk the ground.

Man! I guess we all have a need to worry about SOME thing or other. I got my
license in MD; wound up doing the bulk of my soaring (and OFLs) west of
Amarillo (TX) and east of central Utah. MY biggest worry was/remains being
able to fly the same ship tomorrow. Amazingly, that worry kept me from
"heading out over sketchy areas"...at least when I had the slightest doubt
that my "tomorrow" goal was at risk if I did so. Soared over the oilfields
west of Hobbs, above/across the Texas breaks of the Canadian River, throughout
most of central CO mountains...IOW, above LOTS of "essentially unlandable
terrain." My worst OFL accident has been a dirt-clod-poked-hole in my 1-26's
fabric when in my early-on, tyronic, ignorance I failed to comprehend until
short final, there was a *difference* between "freshly plowed" and
"plowed/harrowed/raked" brown fields. (Doh!)

Somehow, I doubt something as arcane as the "contest hard deck" being
discussed in this thread will have "an obviously measurable effect" on the
quantity of busted ships if in fact "the worry expressed by my non-racing
pilot friends" is insufficient to prevent them from (apparently) acknowledging
that worry (and presumably, soaring with that acknowledgement in mind) when
they are NOT participating in a contest, yet NOT flying similarly should they
enter a contest. I respectfully suggest anyone knowing such XC pilots point
out to them that logical disconnect if they ever DO choose to fly in a contest
and continue to reason similarly. What am I missing? Are (arguably,
often-casually read/absorbed/understood by non-podium-contenders) contest
rules *seriously* considered a more powerful influence on pilot behavior than
the obvious, immediate, economic-/health-risks "imminently-possible downsides"
associated with every off-field landing?

Bob - color me genyoowinely puzzled - W.

P.S. For the record, I'm not trying to re-generate the previously-plowed
intellectual ground debating "anarchy vs. rules." I understand "the general
need for rules" - Hey! I happen to like our U.S. Constitution, f'r'example,
wry chuckle. What's swimming about somewhat amorphously in my skull are
thoughts along the lines of: "bureaucratic complexity," "diminishing returns,"
choosing to *very*-indirectly address a (training) problem, etc.

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