Finish lines

At 18:30 03 May 2005, wrote:
Funny, I thought this discussion was about RACING finishes.
JJ, if you
(or anyone else) feels uncomfortable finishing at 50
ft over the
runway, then don't do it - nobody is forcing you and
the rules don't
have a max finish height.

I guess this debate wasn't dead, it was just resting...

9B

Say, JJ, did they point you at the range and tell you,
'here's some 20mm and
some little blue bombs -- now go do what you've seen
in the films'? Or did
they give you a bunch of dual training, good briefs
and debriefs, and lots
of practice?

Minimum 'foul' altitudes were established for range
work. Before that, jocks were flying into the ground.
Under my proposal, your minimum 'foul' altitude would
be 500 feet.

Are we ignoring training while trying to legislate
safety?

Come on, we can't even get the assembly check into
the rules and you want to establish a low altitude
/ high speed training school? Charlie has a way to
make pilots do their assembly checks, he announces
the names of all those who didn't do it the day before.
Guess what, the next day everybody is in compliance.
We don't have any authority over our pilots, thats
the problem.
JJ

John Sinclair wrote:
Say, JJ, did they point you at the range and tell you,
'here's some 20mm and
some little blue bombs -- now go do what you've seen
in the films'? Or did
they give you a bunch of dual training, good briefs
and debriefs, and lots
of practice?

Minimum 'foul' altitudes were established for range
work. Before that, jocks were flying into the ground.
Under my proposal, your minimum 'foul' altitude would
be 500 feet.

Are we ignoring training while trying to legislate
safety?

Come on, we can't even get the assembly check into
the rules and you want to establish a low altitude
/ high speed training school? Charlie has a way to
make pilots do their assembly checks, he announces
the names of all those who didn't do it the day before.
Guess what, the next day everybody is in compliance.
We don't have any authority over our pilots, thats
the problem.
JJ

Assembly check has been very effectively enforced by many contest
organisers with the simple policy of "no signiture on the wing tape- no
tow".
As to proposal by another to require training in low finishes, I'll be
curious if he is willing to teach this school and sign off pilots. I,
for one will not be doing this. Imagine the potential liability.
We continuously do recurrent training at contests in the form of safety
talks.
Others of us also counsel pilots who are seen doing marginal finishes
in order to try to prevent accidents.
All that said, I love to do speed finishes, am sorry to see them on the
way out, but think their time has come and gone.
UH

So let me understand this: We get together at sanctionned contests, to
engage in a competitive activity that requires, shall we say,
aggressive flying, but are unwilling to provide proper supervised
training or evaluation of the skills necessary to safely engage in our
sport? Because we are scared of getting sued? YGTBSM!

So instead, why not eliminate all risk: Only one contestant can be
airborne at a time, minimum altitude 3000' AGL, automatic
disqualification if one lands out, and maximum speed on course limited
to the Va of the glider. Dry, of course. And on a flight plan.

Again, other risky sports seem to have no problem training, evaluating,
and certifying their participants. What's so different about glider
pilots?

I sure would like to know that the stranger that just joined me in the
prestart gaggle has a clue as to what he is doing - ditto with the guy
next to me at the end of out final glides.

Maybe it is time to gin up an alternative racing series. Heck, get
(shudder) Red Bull to sponsor it. Make it interesting, challenging,
and fun - not just another group XC around the local area. Seems like
they are trying that out in France....

And sure, if it would do any good, I would be more than happy to teach
someone everyting I know about safe low passes.

66

Okay, guys.
Go see my new thread for Avenal XC training.
Send your friends ( or not such good friends) for
their Spring training on finishes, or centering, or gate
directional awareness, or any other contesting topic.

I can take that heat.

Cindy B

Will try to focus on the issue through testosterone haze.
As an active racer and CFI for almost 30 years, I have taught countless
courses in racing to new and not so new pilots. Final glides and
finishes are an important part of this teaching.
That said, consider the scenario in which Joe Racer Newbie is trained
and performs satisfactorily in the training course under low stress and
out of the competition environment.
He is then signed off by someone as having been trained satisfactorily.

Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
spins in- fatally.
Do you not think this person who signed this pilot off as trained is
going to be at serious risk of lawsuit from wife or others?
Are you volunteering to take on this duty?
UH

Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
spins in- fatally.
Do you not think this person who signed this pilot off as trained is
going to be at serious risk of lawsuit from wife or others?
Are you volunteering to take on this duty?
UH


And the lawyer, looking at the $1m contest liability insurance, will
surely ask the contest organizers why they chose to require a 50 foot
finish line when a 500 foot or higher finish was an available option
in the rules. All the fun arguments we have here will evaporate in
court with one crash in front of them and a long list of similar
crashes in the NTSB database.

Let us hope it won't happen, and let us hope nobody files a suit when
it does. (Keep in mind it's not just spouses and children who might
sue. Life insurance companies can sue, and pieces of glider can do a
lot of damage to unsuspecting bystanders on the ground) But if it does
happen the contest organizers are exposed to a significant liability.

BB

"Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
spins in- fatally"

Funny, that's exactly my objection to the "500' at one mile" finish.
Joe Newbie blows his final glide, ends up at 450' and 60 knots at 1.1
miles, then tries to pull up over the "wire" cause he doesn't want to
pooch his finish in front of all the old heads. Hmm, low, slow,
pulling up - even if he doesn't spin he might end up with nothing left
to fly any sort of organized (read:safe) pattern.

And this is the "safer" finish JJ and others are pushing? Sorry, I
don't agree.

Here is another problem: The next day, Joe Newbie having survived his
first finish with only some minor scratches to his ego and gelcoat,
decides to really nail his finish this time. So he adds some extra
altitude in his last thermal (which involves some extra heads-down time
with his fancy new PDA), then as he is approaching the finish, he is
concentrating on his altitude (mustn't be too low), airspeed (mustn't
bee too fast), and where the line is (gee that PDA screen is hard to
see).

So what we have here is a bloody IFR finish!

Yeah, that's a BIG improvement.

OTOH, if Joe has been reminded that until he is comfortable, it is
perfectly OK to finish a bit high or to setup for a straight-in if he
is low and slow, on both days he just has to look out the window,
visually navigate across the finish line, then make the appropriate
pattern entry.

Sorry JJ and UH, I still do not agree with your points of view.

66

wrote:

As to proposal by another to require training in low finishes, I'll be
curious if he is willing to teach this school and sign off pilots. I,
for one will not be doing this.

So how would that be any different from signing somebody off for aerotow? Or
any other maneuver? You sign them off on low-altitude rope breaks every day.

Somebody signs off those few who do glider acro shows, because they have
proven they can do it within the established bounds of safety. If somebody
from the FAA will sign off on glider acro near an airshow crowd, why can't a
well-qualified CFIG sign off for low fast finishes? Apparently some
bureaucrats know how to use the regulations to let the job get done, rather
than using "liability" fears to bolster their own pet peeves.

If the perceived liability problem can't be overcome, then we deserve what
we get -- which will be even more liability for ham-handed no-clue so-called
pilots -- right up to the day when _nobody_ gets into a glider, period.


Jack

At 13:00 05 May 2005, wrote:

consider the scenario in which Joe Racer Newbie is
trained
and performs satisfactorily in the training course
under low stress and
out of the competition environment.

Geeze you have just described every training environment
know to mankind! Yet you still teach? If I felt like
you, I would never tell anyone to ever do anything
ever again. There might be liability in it. How many
flights are your students averaging before they solo?
Seriously though, ALL, teachers assume some liability
but are rewarded with seeing someone else enjoying
what we love to do! Low passes and all!