Visulalizing the Finish Cylinder

At 05:00 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
Andy,
FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within
500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary
for takeoff and landing.

If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile
cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the
field and make any appropriate pattern, including no
pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to
dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder
if there is any people, places or things there.

I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves,
but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line?
500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate
crew is sitting at the start of the finish line.
Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish
cylinder.

I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some
good arguments
you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting
hairs because it tries to
read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass
or because, as you say,
'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the
gate is no different than
the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves
a straight line and one
involves a curved line.

If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway?

I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have
a ceremony.

9B

Andy,
I think you may have misinterpreted my statement concerning
'diving at the edge of the cylinder'. I don't do that.
I aim to be at 500 feet at 1 mile. As you know, the
scoring program uses the GPS altimiter error, that
existed just prior to take off and applies this error
to the GPS reading in the finish cylinder. Read, you
can miss it by just a few feet. Been there, done that,
so I now start a gentle pull up when my range reads
1 mile. This doesn't have to be any kind of a precise
maneuver and if you miss the exact 1 mile mark, it
doesn't mean anything, just insure you log a couple
of dots above the magic 500 foot point. No math required,
here.


I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some
good arguments
you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting
hairs because it tries to
read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass
or because, as you say,
'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the
gate is no different than
the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves
a straight line and one
involves a curved line.

If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway?

We don't, but somebody's still there to say, 'Good
Finish, JJ', It's a tradition, I guess. Sounds good,
but means nothing. I did like hearing Charlie saying,
'Good finish, JJ, Good contest, John'


I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have
a ceremony.

Grrrrrrrrr, a Neanderthal hugging a Wuss, maybe we
can sell tickets.

Let's let the rules committee and the directors decide
if we are taking any unnecessary risks in our sanctioned
contests. I believe we laid out the facts for them.
Cheers,
JJ

At 23:00 23 March 2005, wrote:
Well, I like the fight you put up, at any rate. I won't
tell anyone
you're a nice guy in person... OK?

We'll have to continue to disagree. But I think we've
each carried our
argument as far as it can go via a discussion board.
Next comes beers
and brawling. Let's plan an evening for the week before
the 2006 nats
at the Mexican Restaurant in Yreka. I think we can
pull together a few
other people to sit on either side of the teeter-totter.
Should be fun!

Cheers and good gliding. And check your six before
pulling anywhere, be
it finish line or cylinder.

OC

I suspect that, like the mandatory ELTs, the rules
committe may decide that CDs are too ignorant to decide
for themselves, and take the option away from CDs and
hosting bodies of deciding for themselves to use cylinders.


JJ makes good arguments for some locations, but I'm
not
inclined to bless a decision against finish gates for
every contest everywhere forever. And it sounds like
this is where this is going, just like ELTs.

As a youngster (relatively) who plans to
live a long time, I will likely outlive most of you
and
endure the consequences of either policies that are
too lax OR too strict. Depending on how your ideas
helped or hurt the sport, I will (figuratively) find
your graves and place either flowers or something else
on it to 'reward' your decisions

I'm still on the fence over finish gate vs. cylinder,
for some
locations, but I'm sure I'll have a stronger, wiser
opinion
by the time I'm as old as JJ

At 00:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
Let's let the rules committee and the directors decide
if we are taking any unnecessary risks in our sanctioned
contests. I believe we laid out the facts for them.
Cheers,
JJ

At 23:00 23 March 2005, wrote:
Well, I like the fight you put up, at any rate. I won't
tell anyone
you're a nice guy in person... OK?

We'll have to continue to disagree. But I think we've
each carried our
argument as far as it can go via a discussion board.
Next comes beers
and brawling. Let's plan an evening for the week before
the 2006 nats
at the Mexican Restaurant in Yreka. I think we can
pull together a few
other people to sit on either side of the teeter-totter.
Should be fun!

Cheers and good gliding. And check your six before
pulling anywhere, be
it finish line or cylinder.

OC






Mark J. Boyd

OC, Your pessimistic approach to the finish cylinder
makes me wonder just how many times you have flown
it? I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese,
Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you
flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter?
JJ

At 12:00 24 March 2005, wrote:
Andy,

You point out many of the unknowns that concern me,
while advocates are
taking a 'don't worry, be happy' approach to addressing
them. I keep
looking for the 'name' that characterizes what I think
of the
cylinder... You've helped me find it.

'The three monkeys finish'

At 15:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese,
Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you
flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter?

I had two problems at Parowan that were manageable,
but gave me pause because they could have been worse.

- Six gliders entering the downwind at once. Because
the finish is totally unmanaged, gliders tend to finish
in one sequence, but enter the pattern in a different
sequence several minutes later. In my case it lead
to some maneuvering low on base leg.

- At the cylinder edge, doing 130-140kts I pick up
out of the corner of my eye another competitor on a
perpendicular course with divebrakes full open flying
right at me. I doubt he could see me because he was
nose-high and decending rapidly.

I don't want to be as wuss, because I don't feel particularly
at risk finishing under any system. I would observe
that the times I have been most concerned flying are
when I have encountered conflicting traffic that I
wasn't aware of - someone entering a thermal improperly,
reverse courselines on a flat triangle, etc. Under
any finish scheme, the airport is going to be a high-traffic
area. The real question is will I know where the traffic
is or not? I've done my share of wingtip-to-wingtip
finishes - hooking the gate and everything. But I always
knew where everyone was because our courses slowly
converged over 10, 15, 20 miles. Not so with the cylinder.
Some of the culprit here is the new tasking - this
can't happen in a MAT unless you put a steering turn
in, and TATs spread pilots out too, but some of the
problem is the nature of the cylinder where people
don't always behave in preditcable ways at the line,
probably because they don't have to.

On the energy question, I suspect this represents
100% of JJ's accidents (BTW JJ - you did a nice job
speculating what may have happened in one case. I
for one would like to hear the particulars on the other
4 when you get your energy back). The conventional
wisdom is that a higher finish line will be safer.
My speculation is that we are trading old problems
for new ones - only time will tell. The old problem
is someone, tired and dehydrated, who finishes at 50'
and 90 knots. The new problem is someone, tired and
dehydrated, who finishes at 500', 1 mile out and 50
knots then drifts towards the airport. Both end up
at some sort of confused 'pattern' entry with about
300'. Then we've added a new problem of people who
mijudge the glide and find they need to climb to get
to 500' - I can imagine all kinds of chaos coming out
of that - apparently some has already.

Of course there's no substitute for good judgement
and vigilence - I'm a little concerned that people
feel like the cylinder has absolved them of the need
to stay on the ball while finishing.

Hope that didn't cost me my hug.

9B

At 05:00 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
Andy,
FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within
500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary
for takeoff and landing.

If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile
cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the
field and make any appropriate pattern, including no
pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to
dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder
if there is any people, places or things there.

I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves,
but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line?
500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate
crew is sitting at the start of the finish line.
Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish
cylinder.

I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some
good arguments
you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting
hairs because it tries to
read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass
or because, as you say,
'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the
gate is no different than
the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves
a straight line and one
involves a curved line.

If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway?

I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have
a ceremony.

9B

Morning Andy,
I remember a busy day at Parowan, several finishers
milling around. The guy I was most worried about was
slope soaring the near by mountains and just waiting
for things to clear out a bit. The problem comes from
people that finish with excess altitude and that happens
with either gate.

Been working on 'Finish Gate Accident no. 2', but right
now I got to go flying. Post frontal in the valley
and Q's are a popping.

Cheers,
JJ

At 17:30 24 March 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 15:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese,
Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you
flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter?

I had two problems at Parowan that were manageable,
but gave me pause because they could have been worse.

- Six gliders entering the downwind at once. Because
the finish is totally unmanaged, gliders tend to finish
in one sequence, but enter the pattern in a different
sequence several minutes later. In my case it lead
to some maneuvering low on base leg.

- At the cylinder edge, doing 130-140kts I pick up
out of the corner of my eye another competitor on a
perpendicular course with divebrakes full open flying
right at me. I doubt he could see me because he was
nose-high and decending rapidly.

I don't want to be as wuss, because I don't feel particularly
at risk finishing under any system. I would observe
that the times I have been most concerned flying are
when I have encountered conflicting traffic that I
wasn't aware of - someone entering a thermal improperly,
reverse courselines on a flat triangle, etc. Under
any finish scheme, the airport is going to be a high-traffic
area. The real question is will I know where the traffic
is or not? I've done my share of wingtip-to-wingtip
finishes - hooking the gate and everything. But I always
knew where everyone was because our courses slowly
converged over 10, 15, 20 miles. Not so with the cylinder.
Some of the culprit here is the new tasking - this
can't happen in a MAT unless you put a steering turn
in, and TATs spread pilots out too, but some of the
problem is the nature of the cylinder where people
don't always behave in preditcable ways at the line,
probably because they don't have to.

On the energy question, I suspect this represents
100% of JJ's accidents (BTW JJ - you did a nice job
speculating what may have happened in one case. I
for one would like to hear the particulars on the other
4 when you get your energy back). The conventional
wisdom is that a higher finish line will be safer.
My speculation is that we are trading old problems
for new ones - only time will tell. The old problem
is someone, tired and dehydrated, who finishes at 50'
and 90 knots. The new problem is someone, tired and
dehydrated, who finishes at 500', 1 mile out and 50
knots then drifts towards the airport. Both end up
at some sort of confused 'pattern' entry with about
300'. Then we've added a new problem of people who
mijudge the glide and find they need to climb to get
to 500' - I can imagine all kinds of chaos coming out
of that - apparently some has already.

Of course there's no substitute for good judgement
and vigilence - I'm a little concerned that people
feel like the cylinder has absolved them of the need
to stay on the ball while finishing.

Hope that didn't cost me my hug.

9B