If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message ... While I got you on the horn, your +15 minute thing is supposed to make things fairer for the guys that dont have fancy computers that give an ETA. Well guess what? Everybody is smart enough to make sure they get home 15 minutes late. All you have succeeded in doing is to add 15 minutes to all optional tasks. It's kind'a like the railroad that discovered a majority of accidents involved the caboose being hit by another train. Their solution was to remove all cabooses. Sounds like adding 15 minutes doesn't it? JJ Sinclair I've heard several people claim that "getting back 15 minutes after minimun time" is the new secret strategy to deal with the 15 minute time addition. I don't understand why anyone would think that this is better than finishing at any other value over minimum time. Could someone who believes that this stragegy has a rational basis please explain it here? Mike McNulty |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Safer, in theory, seems to be the proper phrase.
We had this for one day at Hobbs regionals this year and 1000 ft min. for the rest of the contest (sports class). Theory is right. The practical aspect is that I spent more heads down time looking at my distance versus altitude as I got inside the last 10 miles or so of the finish cylinder. When we had a finish gate, we knew where it was, we could see it. No heads down. We could still finish well above worm disruption altitude. I see no benefit in the lowest finishes. Anything lower than a hundred or so feet has no redeeming virtue. Another anti-safety aspect is that finishing at 1000 ft at 2 miles from the field means that you spend considerable time in the immediate vincinity of the pattern slowing down and descending. More time means more exposure. There is an optimum here. Too little time is bad - no options. Too much time is bad - too much exposure to other lawn darts. The last part is that there really needs to be a final aligning point, regardless of the task called. Not all the classes should have the same final turn, but all should be within a relatively small (45 degrees?) angle from the field, located so as to put the glider into a downwind leg with minimal manuvering. I think the finish cylinder is an unexpected (to me, anyway) FAILURE in capital letters. Dennis In article 7YO9b.481795$uu5.83242@sccrnsc04, "Paul Remde" wrote: Hi, This discussion is very interesting. I applaud John for his efforts to make sailplane racing safer. I agree with the theory that if we just move the playing field up 500 feet, it will dramatically improve safety. It is my impression that is what he is trying to do. Why is that so bad? I also agree that I'd prefer to have fewer rules, but in this case I must lean toward safety over simplicity. I must admit that I am a pilot with 2 young children and I will vote for anything that will allow me to continue to fly contests with less reason to worry that I'll leave my kids without a father or my wife without her husband. I must also admit that I am a relatively inexperienced contest pilot - having flown in only 4 contests. Fly Safe, Paul Remde "Andy Blackburn" wrote in message ... I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap it and at what level of competition. If the intent is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical, empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track the bigger objectives. 9B At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote: We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle doesn't pay much attention to rules anyway. John Cochrane wrote: Fellow US pilots: This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article 'Safer Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....ch/Papers/#For _glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from 'pilot judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points' from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message ... John Boy, Your *distance only* penalty is like shooting somebody for shoplifting. Now that *is* a good idea! Ian |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I need to think about the proposed new rule for a while. Then I
will decide how to vote. I applaud John Cochrane's efforts to improve the US contest rules. I admire his willingness to invite discussion in this forum. What I don't admire is: 1. Attacking John personally. 2. Complaining about other rules. 3. Complaining about the number of rules. 4. Brainless macho. Let's stick to the issues. If your goal is persuasion, address the points of the other guy's argument. If your goal is to be annoying, don't change a thing. "Ninety-eight percent of the posters in this group give the rest a bad name." - Stephen Wright (originally about lawyers). -Pat |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"Todd Pattist" wrote in message ... "Michael McNulty" wrote: I've heard several people claim that "getting back 15 minutes after minimun time" is the new secret strategy to deal with the 15 minute time addition. I don't understand why anyone would think that this is better than finishing at any other value over minimum time. Could someone who believes that this stragegy has a rational basis please explain it here? I'd suggest you start a new thread on the 15 minute rule if you want a long answer. Although both the 500 ft rule and the 15 min. rule come from John Cochrane, they are vastly different. The 15 min. rule has clear consequences and mathematical certainty. Without the 15 min. rule, a slower pilot can beat a faster pilot by accurately flying exactly minimum time on course. The effects on pilot scores of the two alternative rules are known with certainty. Those who are against the new 15 min. rule typically are willing to let the slower pilot win in order to have simpler rules, or because they think that predicting arrival time at the finish should be worth some points. IMHO, the 500' rule is different because we don't *really* know the effect on safety. Some think it makes things safer, some don't, but no one can really prove either position. That's life - we live with uncertainty. Pilots will have to make up their own mind and vote their conscience The short answer to your question, however, is that you don't want to arrive home before MT, so 15 minutes is a reasonable guarantee that you won't undershoot MT, and you don't want to take too much risk of landing out or having the day die, so you don't want to fly too long. Other than that, I see no real advantage to "15 minutes" after MT as the goal. If the day is getting stronger, you'd want to fly longer. If it's getting weaker, you'd want to fly shorter. If you have a great speed because you hit some superb thermals perfectly, you'd probably be better off locking it in and heading home, provided you don't get home before MT. Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) You don't "want to arrive home before MT" either with or without the 15 minute scoring rule. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
John,
I admire your commitment to safety, and before GPS I would have objected strenously to the doughnut. But with modern navigational aids, I no longer need the outward spiral of white crosses marking the demise of so many miscalculated final glides to point the way home. Indeed, perhaps we can finally dispose of their remains and their memories. People around the gliderport were beginning to take notice that we run an unsafe operation. BTW, I question the rhetorical impact of "life and death decisions" for 400 points. I would suggest that those 400 points are an incentive to take a few extra turns before you light the reheat. As for landing close to the airport, some of us scout the fields before we start competing, just like some road racers like to walk the track before they strap on 600 horsepower. Alas, a doughnut at the end of a flight may be just what I need. Yet another rule up the wazoo. I'm starting to wince as I sit down for my postfligh brew. As a side not, remember all, that a poll, while it measures the opinions of its respondents, asks only the questions its authors want answered. Measure its objectivity by how well it addresses what you think is important. I don't expect to see a question asking if we should abolish the rules committee and only establish an ad hoc commmittee in the event that we have a clear, compelling reason to change the rules. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dennis observed pretty much what I did at Hobbs - finishing at a set height
away from the normal finish gate puts more workload on pilots during the final glide. In most contests, you can see the finish gate and judge your approach accordingly. For a "virtual" donut gate, you are relying on instruments. Then, after the finish, you are avoiding all the other classes whistling in at red line while descending from your now excessive finish height. Again, I'm not going to argue against a specific finish height, but finishing 2 miles or more away from the normal finish gate is more difficult in my experience and doesn't add safety, which was the stated goal. And my final point - most flight computers won't give you a glide to the outside of a cylinder, so you are relying on doing math in your head on the last few miles home. I can do final glide math in my head, than you very much, but it's harder than following your flight computer. I fail to see how extra work load is increasing safety. Mike ASW 20 WA "dennis brown" wrote in message ink.net... Safer, in theory, seems to be the proper phrase. We had this for one day at Hobbs regionals this year and 1000 ft min. for the rest of the contest (sports class). Theory is right. The practical aspect is that I spent more heads down time looking at my distance versus altitude as I got inside the last 10 miles or so of the finish cylinder. When we had a finish gate, we knew where it was, we could see it. No heads down. We could still finish well above worm disruption altitude. I see no benefit in the lowest finishes. Anything lower than a hundred or so feet has no redeeming virtue. Another anti-safety aspect is that finishing at 1000 ft at 2 miles from the field means that you spend considerable time in the immediate vincinity of the pattern slowing down and descending. More time means more exposure. There is an optimum here. Too little time is bad - no options. Too much time is bad - too much exposure to other lawn darts. The last part is that there really needs to be a final aligning point, regardless of the task called. Not all the classes should have the same final turn, but all should be within a relatively small (45 degrees?) angle from the field, located so as to put the glider into a downwind leg with minimal manuvering. I think the finish cylinder is an unexpected (to me, anyway) FAILURE in capital letters. Dennis In article 7YO9b.481795$uu5.83242@sccrnsc04, "Paul Remde" wrote: Hi, This discussion is very interesting. I applaud John for his efforts to make sailplane racing safer. I agree with the theory that if we just move the playing field up 500 feet, it will dramatically improve safety. It is my impression that is what he is trying to do. Why is that so bad? I also agree that I'd prefer to have fewer rules, but in this case I must lean toward safety over simplicity. I must admit that I am a pilot with 2 young children and I will vote for anything that will allow me to continue to fly contests with less reason to worry that I'll leave my kids without a father or my wife without her husband. I must also admit that I am a relatively inexperienced contest pilot - having flown in only 4 contests. Fly Safe, Paul Remde "Andy Blackburn" wrote in message ... I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap it and at what level of competition. If the intent is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical, empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track the bigger objectives. 9B At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote: We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle doesn't pay much attention to rules anyway. John Cochrane wrote: Fellow US pilots: This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article 'Safer Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....ch/Papers/#For _glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from 'pilot judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points' from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message news "John Cochrane" wrote... Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. ... The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. I hate to sound like one of those libertarians, but I have to say this proposed rule goes too far. http://www.lp.org/quiz/ take the World's Smallest Political Quiz--you may be one! :-) Back on topic.... As a new competitor (and an old libertarian), John's statement that the rule is really targeted at newer competitors is one I don't understand. Newer, less experienced competitors are free under the current rules to arrive at the finish near cloudbase if they want to. As a new competitor, I understand that I don't have the experience to be squeeking in final glides in contests for the points. Hell, I'm just trying to get from the top of the bottom quartile into the bottom of the third quartile. My final glide plan is very conservative, more so than what John's proposal calls for. That's what I'll do regardless of what the rules say I _may_ do--because I know what I _can_ do comfortably. Current rules allow competitors to put themselves into positions where the pucker factor can get extreme. Current rules do not require competitors to put themselves in those positions. I believe my more conservative final glide plan is the right thing for me to do, but I don't think that gives me the right to require others to fly more conservatively. Brent |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
MM wrote Could someone who believes that
this stragegy has a rational basis please explain it here? MM, The 15 minute rule adds 15 minutes to all competitors times. Compare two flights where pilot A finishes at the minimum time and pilot B finishes 15 minutes later. Lets say both pilots have the same speed (distance flown devided by their time) now add 15 minutes to each pilots time. You will see that adding 15 minutes to the pilot that already flew over by 15 minutes will be hurt LESS than the pilot who finished right on time. The pilot who flew about 15 minutes over will get about 10 to 12 more points with the new system. One other troubling little problem is, when the speeds are close, the SLOWER pilot can get more points. See Region 11, south, Avenal, day 1, Open, JJ gete 1000 points for flying 51.72 and Ed Salkeld gets 999 points for flying 52.11. Same thing on day 3 and day 4. Anomalies like this undermine confidence in the scoring system. This tweaking of the scoring system hasn't achieved the stated purpose of giving the guy without a fancy new computer a better chance, because everybody just flies about 15 minutes over when possible. Note, the time spent flying over the minimum time must be spent productively, i.e. making more miles. JJ Sinclair |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Can a Private Pilot tow gliders and get paid? | zatatime | Piloting | 3 | October 17th 04 01:35 AM |
FAA has temporarily withdrawn the proposed Sport Pilot rule | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 2 | March 27th 04 06:23 AM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |