700 agl / 1 mile finish

On Friday, May 24, 2013 12:07:53 PM UTC-5, wrote:
Personally I advocate: 500 / 1 mile guidance (with provision for changes to suit special cases like Minden) and a *modest* penalty for being low, say 10 pts per 100'.... Yes, I know you can hit 500 / 1 mile at 60 kts in an 18m ship and not make the airport at ______ and I'm sorry someone decided to try that. Evan Ludeman / T8 Evan, and everyone else. This rule is not about the finish. Wrap your head around that slowly. This rule has nothing to do with making sure you can make it to the airport after crossing the finish cylinder. The rule is aimed at the guy 10 miles out on MacCready 0 glide plus 50 feet. With your proposal -- 500', 10 points per 100' low -- that pilot looks at his options: pop over the fence, 50 point penalty. Land out he lose 400 points. The rules are giving the pilot a very strong incentive to try it. Low final glides, and heroic pop over the fence stories were once part of gliding lore. As was picking up pieces from the fence and the last few fields. Once again, "guidance" is not "rule." You cannot expect the RC sitting in its glorious splendor to decide the right finish altitude for every contest, every airport, and every weather condition, because the CD and pilots who are there won't be able to think of it! That's what we have CDs and advisers for. The rule sets forth a structure. Pilots, CDs, and advisers can make the finish high or low as needed. A better idea for Mifflin (and Truckee) might be a remote finish on the ridge top. John Cochrane

as long as the remote finish point is within 2 miles of the airport, right? Or is there somewhere else in the rules that I'm not seeing that allows the CD to set a remote finish anywhere they choose?

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:39:54 PM UTC-4, wrote:


By and large, yes. But not always. Download Mifflin traces and watch fun glides through the gap. Mc 0 + 50' through the gap is not for the faint of heart.

You say that as though it was commonplace. It wasn't.

T8

On Friday, May 24, 2013 1:07:53 PM UTC-4, wrote:

The rule is aimed at the guy 10 miles out on MacCready 0 glide plus 50 feet. With your proposal -- 500', 10 points per 100' low -- that pilot looks at his options: pop over the fence, 50 point penalty. Land out he lose 400 points. The rules are giving the pilot a very strong incentive to try it.. Low final glides, and heroic pop over the fence stories were once part of gliding lore. As was picking up pieces from the fence and the last few fields.

Believe it or not, I get the motivation. My point is that you've created a rather blunt instrument to deal with it and the unintended consequences are not completely trivial.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Evan,

Are you thinking perhaps a proportional penalty (say 1 pt per foot) but no loss if speed points would be better? I could support that. Or are you saying Mifflin should have had no minimum height this day? 300 ft? 100? 50? Avoid the cars and squirrels? :-), just kidding. Seriously what would have been the right number or procedure for that day at Mifflin?

The US finish rule, if its going to be effective, needs to have at least a few sharp teeth, but perhaps a simple linear penalty without losing speed points would be less harsh for pilots who are unable to meet their finish height for "innocent" reasons. I think this is what you are saying.

Again, I can agree that the current penalty being very significant. But if we have this rule and pilots are finishing at minimum energy to avoid the penalty (happens all the time), it probably should be even higher and not lower. As you mentioned, you were min energy and 500 ft. Thats no fun and risky for sure. In that case, that low, it is probably safer to have no finish penalty and simply allow finishing pilots to plan a pattern with energy as part of the finish final glide. No worry about min energy to a finish height and then decide what to do based on who is around you at that moment. Also that pilot (finishing at 502 and 50 knots) is laser focused on his/her altimeter at the absolute worst possible moment while near stall (other than starting of course in a big high energy gaggle). They have also probably been spending alot of time heads down in the cockpit in the tense minutes leading up to the finish!

How many pilots did not receive a finish penalty on this day? HF doesn't count as he made a computer boo boo. Did most pilots make it?

I guess my concern is that all pilots have the same rule to manage no matter what it is. The rule simply builds in a safety buffer on a worst case scenario. The question is this: is that safety buffer high enough in the event of this low energy situation to be safer? Nothing in the US rule rewards a pilot for making the safe decision and maintaining their precious energy close to the ground, at say 300 ft, trying to avoid the landout limit in a 500 agl finish minimum task. Only the hammer is applied. The result will be pilots doing what you did.

Also, I'm not sure bad luck is to blame if most pilots met the minimum. If some or most met the finish height, then it was a finish strategy problem perhaps for those who missed. But if everyone made it in at 50 knots and 502 feet it was actually far more dangerous for the contest. That is an excellent point if its what your saying. Ill look at the files I guess.

I would say a higher minimum which factors in a stall/spin at finish or no penalty at all and simply fall back on the FAR s, and basic rules of aviation safety which are clearly and firmly in place for all if us and supersede US or FAI rules.

I don't think there is a right answer. I personally think we need a bigger buffer (1000') or no finish height per FAI.

Sean

On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote:
Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin.



Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work.



I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe.



Evan Ludeman / T8

Can’t we allll, just have a line?

On Friday, May 24, 2013 4:15:17 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Friday, May 24, 2013 10:04:27 AM UTC-4, Evan Ludeman wrote: Man, what a pain in the ass at Mifflin. Returning on the back side of Jacks with weak ridge and no thermals, you leave the ridge at 1900-2000 because you *cannot* get higher and fly through a ton of sink (netto 4 - 6 kts down is common). The closest point of the ridge to the edge of the finish cylinder is 1.6 SM and the 700' agl finish is 1520. You'd probably prefer to cut the corner if energy allows, but that makes the distance more like 3 miles.. Twice I was hanging on my flaps at 42 kts at what I guessed to be the edge of the cylinder (when the gps says 1.0 mile, you've generally finished several seconds earlier). Eyes on the panel, about 1530 feet, right in the GA traffic pattern (amazing how many GA pilots don't read Notams and show up at closed airports!). This is safer than an eyes out finish at lower altitude? I don't think so. I fly a '20. What's a Libelle pilot supposed to do in that situation? We never found out because none of the low performance guys had to try to make this work. I don't have a problem with penalizing actual unsafe flying. However, we're now erring on the side of penalizing (severely) *potentially* unsafe flying. Two guys I know of (there may have been others) drew no speed points after hitting the cylinder below 1320 agl. In both cases the airport arrivals were reasonable energy and safe. Evan Ludeman / T8 Can’t we allll, just have a line?

Yes you can in nationals and regionals that do not have a Sports class.
More fun, no finish height penalties, incrementally less safe.
UH

On Friday, May 24, 2013 3:33:39 PM UTC-4, Sean F (F2) wrote:
Evan,



Are you thinking perhaps a proportional penalty (say 1 pt per foot) but no loss if speed points would be better? I could support that. Or are you saying Mifflin should have had no minimum height this day? 300 ft? 100? 50? Avoid the cars and squirrels? :-), just kidding. Seriously what would have been the right number or procedure for that day at Mifflin?



The US finish rule, if its going to be effective, needs to have at least a few sharp teeth, but perhaps a simple linear penalty without losing speed points would be less harsh for pilots who are unable to meet their finish height for "innocent" reasons. I think this is what you are saying.



Again, I can agree that the current penalty being very significant. But if we have this rule and pilots are finishing at minimum energy to avoid the penalty (happens all the time), it probably should be even higher and not lower. As you mentioned, you were min energy and 500 ft. Thats no fun and risky for sure. In that case, that low, it is probably safer to have no finish penalty and simply allow finishing pilots to plan a pattern with energy as part of the finish final glide. No worry about min energy to a finish height and then decide what to do based on who is around you at that moment. Also that pilot (finishing at 502 and 50 knots) is laser focused on his/her altimeter at the absolute worst possible moment while near stall (other than starting of course in a big high energy gaggle). They have also probably been spending alot of time heads down in the cockpit in the tense minutes leading up to the finish!



How many pilots did not receive a finish penalty on this day? HF doesn't count as he made a computer boo boo. Did most pilots make it?



I guess my concern is that all pilots have the same rule to manage no matter what it is. The rule simply builds in a safety buffer on a worst case scenario. The question is this: is that safety buffer high enough in the event of this low energy situation to be safer? Nothing in the US rule rewards a pilot for making the safe decision and maintaining their precious energy close to the ground, at say 300 ft, trying to avoid the landout limit in a 500 agl finish minimum task. Only the hammer is applied. The result will be pilots doing what you did.



Also, I'm not sure bad luck is to blame if most pilots met the minimum. If some or most met the finish height, then it was a finish strategy problem perhaps for those who missed. But if everyone made it in at 50 knots and 502 feet it was actually far more dangerous for the contest. That is an excellent point if its what your saying. Ill look at the files I guess.



I would say a higher minimum which factors in a stall/spin at finish or no penalty at all and simply fall back on the FAR s, and basic rules of aviation safety which are clearly and firmly in place for all if us and supersede US or FAI rules.



I don't think there is a right answer. I personally think we need a bigger buffer (1000') or no finish height per FAI.



Sean

This is a bit verbose, but please bear with (less interested, please skip).

There is no "one size fits all". Now, with that out of the way, at MiffCo, we "own" the airport, it's Notam closed, the immediate surrounding terrain is unusually landable, there's this big ole ridge top 1000 above the airport 2.6 miles away with an unlandable gap that goes roughly from 3.3 out to 2.3 out.

The finish procedure in place this year was 700 agl / 1 mile. Airport is 820, so finish was 1520. Formerly (through last year) it was 500 agl / 1 mile. Some time in the past it was a 50 foot line finish at Nats.

When I started racing (1991) *all* we had was the "50" foot line finish. Sometimes those "feet" were pretty short :-).

On the back ridge days I mentioned, it was significantly difficult to hit 1520 one mile out. Flying slow, straight and level at 700 agl doesn't concern me. Clock watching to hit the magic 1520 at the magic 1 mile out in air that was nominally sinking a few hundred feet/minute concerned me. It seems a very strange and undesirable thing to encourage. I had the pattern to myself. With simultaneous finishers I'd have been at least 50' lower, eyes out and sore about the ensuing penalty. Obviously, I think this is unnecessary, hence the discussion.

An alternate finish on the ridge top with a min height /below/ the top of the ridge is one possible solution. It suffers from complexity (it would be unreasonable in many cases to use a ridge top finish /alone/). If we were to use this, I would pretty much insist that we make it so pilots can fly it strictly by visual reference (i.e. "if I am at ridge top it's well above minimum finish height").

In practice, the recent 500 / 1 mile cylinder worked fine. Yes, you can invent "edge cases" wherein you can hit 500 / 1 at 50 kts and get into trouble. I can invent as many that involve being 200 low at 130 kts and no problem.

BB's point about discouraging the Mc 0 + 50' glide to the runway /is/ a valid one... but I have personally never seen someone who needed discouraging.

I've seen four final glide wrecks up close (one of these second hand in a very familiar venue, relayed through pictures, flight log and discussion with guys I know who watched, the others I was an on the scene observer). All at some point involved some bit of appallingly bad decision making, and all, curiously involved pilots that I would describe as "recreational" contest fliers (happily all still living, breathing friends of mine too). Points and penalties were absolutely not on their minds. Getting to the airport and even to a specific /runway/ were the goals they could not let go. Two crashed on the airport trying to fly a full pattern from ~200 agl having overflown a perfectly usable alternate runway that they absolutely had made. The others rejected landable fields 8 miles out (one pilot had been in that field the previous day) in favor of an impossible Mc 0 + 300 sort of final glide over unlandable terrain /in the rain/). These are anecdotes, not statistics, but sure as shootin' they've been used in the "we've got to do something" numbers.

Personally, I could happily go back to a zero height finish line. Because I know I'll do it safely. I'm cerebral enough to understand things like "broke is last" and that ultimately we do this contest gig for giggles and peer respect. I'll bring home the extra energy to fly the pattern safely with no complaints. It isn't worth the potential glider rash, conflicts and bad feelings (see "peer respect") for an extra potential four or five points a day. If the day has truly died and I'm on some impossible final glide.... yes I will land five out in a good field rather than press towards a runway that I can't see at 40:1. I've done it in recreational flying, I'd do it in a contest too.

I do worry that the rules as currently in practice create a clock watching mentality. As airmen, we absolutely need to be focused on our airport arrival, pattern and landing in addition to finishing. For me, this was all viscerally obvious in the days of the finish line. I fly the current cylinder pretty much the same way: I bring home the energy I think I need to fly the remainder of the flight safely, but I have to do this weird inverse limbo dance thing at one mile. Not really objectionable at 500 / 1 mi because that's close to where I'd be anyway but annoying 200 higher where it starts to seem excessive w.r.t. what I consider reasonable and safe.

Do my fellow airmen now fly to their cylinder finish at xxx / 1 mile and *then* begin to think about arrival, pattern and landing? Some of what I read and hear suggests this may be so. Please don't do this. Bring home the energy you need, consider that the floor of the cylinder, like the bottom of the gate is only a minimum.

KS is famously quoted as saying "I should be able to call 1000K every day, and have no accidents". I think the same goes for a 50' gate.

Evan Ludeman / T8

Food for thought: What about an "energy surplus at finish" bonus?

The current rules system provides an incentive to spend the last Joule of energy arriving at the bottom of the finish zone. Debate about where that zone should be located/shaped don't change the core incentive system. The concepts of "safer" and "higher scoring" have negative correlation.

But flight logs already have the information needed to know height and velocity, so with mass the total energy ((0.5 * mass * velocity * velocity) + (mass * height * g)) would be trivial to calculate. Subtract out the total energy implied by a finish at "minium height and minimum speed" and now you know how much extra energy a pilot had at the finish. Turn that in to a bonus, and the correlation between "safer" and "higher scoring" is increased..

Cheers,
-Mark Rebuck

On Friday, May 24, 2013 6:24:39 PM UTC-4, wrote:
Food for thought: What about an "energy surplus at finish" bonus? The current rules system provides an incentive to spend the last Joule of energy arriving at the bottom of the finish zone. Debate about where that zone should be located/shaped don't change the core incentive system. The concepts of "safer" and "higher scoring" have negative correlation. But flight logs already have the information needed to know height and velocity, so with mass the total energy ((0.5 * mass * velocity * velocity) + (mass * height * g)) would be trivial to calculate. Subtract out the total energy implied by a finish at "minium height and minimum speed" and now you know how much extra energy a pilot had at the finish. Turn that in to a bonus, and the correlation between "safer" and "higher scoring" is increased. Cheers, -Mark Rebuck

This has been considered and really accomplishes no improvement while adding another complexity to rules and scoring program that people already think are too complicated.
There is no benefit in carrying extra energy into the cylinder and additionally it can cause a mix of gliders entering normally and pilots pulling up which can add significant risk.
In any case the correct speed to cross the edge of the cylinder is the avearage speed for the task.
UH

On Friday, May 24, 2013 7:52:43 PM UTC-5, wrote:
In any case the correct speed to cross the edge of the cylinder is the avearage speed for the task. UH

Really, Hank? Cross into the cylinder at 35 MPH on a 35 MPH day? They do happen, you know. How about not significantly less than MC speed for the last climb.

ZS