Hard Deck

On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 7:45:05 AM UTC-7, wrote:
(Not really a contest pilot here, so read with a grain of salt.)

I can see that the rules make the game and the current rules might encourage some folks to be unsafe. A hard deck data base with penalties seems a possible way to help this, but getting the details right for a hard deck database seems problematic if it is not to significantly limit strategy options.

Perhaps a simpler alternative would be a list of designated landing sites for a contest day.

Penalties would be accessed for not always keeping at least one under you according to some simple equation. (Perhaps looking at only L/D, minimum energy over terrain, and safety altitude.)

The goal is to not fix everything, but at least nudge strategic thinking in a safer direction.

The problem with that sort of approach is that there is no formula that can work. Not only do gliders differ in glide performance but the atmosphere differs a lot from time to time. Late in the day at a flat land site with no wind you might be able to count on 40:1 but in other circumstances 15:1 is all that is reasonably safe. Wind plays a big role in glide angles as well. What's more, the idea of creating a comprehensive database is impractical. For any given contest site that is about a one-man-year task. There is nobody to do that for us. If it has rained recently, it changes. If crops come up, it changes. Picking your very own out-landing place is pretty fundamental to the game.

The problem with that sort of approach is that there is no formula that can work. Not only do gliders differ in glide performance but the atmosphere differs a lot from time to time.

Thanks for the feedback and help in my understanding. To clarify what I was thinking...

I left WX out of the list of things to consider for the penalty on purpose. It did not seem fair to have penalties accessed based on wind values that would not be known until the scoring program looked at all the IGC's and figured them out. A fallback position might be to publish an assumed wind and use if for scoring.

Regardless of each glider's actual performance, I was thinking of a single conservative polar for the contest. My thought was that this would be a sort of handicap to nudge scoring more to the pilot's skill instead of the ship performance.

For the landing points, it seems to me that the first unintended consequence would be the risk of a bunch of gliders crowding a single field. Perhaps landing areas would make more sense.

It seems to me that a simplified assumption of expected WX, unified polar, and landing areas are implicit in the drawing of the SUA's?

I would argue that putting a hard deck rule in place has the ability to
create a safety issue rather than mitigate it.

What happens when the competitor drops below the proposed hard deck?

Must they simply land?

Do they give up trying, and then land out trying to get home, possibly
unfocussed and a bit dejected?

You would then be putting pilots in a situation where they are forced into
landing in an unknown environment and by doing so increasing the risk.

Statistics are statistics and can be manipulated to give the desired
outcome.

The issue here is field section, or lack thereof.

There are many factors that influence what is a safe height to climb away:

1) Experience
2) Hours on type
3) Terrain
4) Having a chosen / planned land out option
5) Aircraft type
6) Weather - reliable day Vs unreliable day

Competition gliding is in decline, keep adding rules which removes the
pilot judgment, the decline will be more rapid.

Just my humble opinion.

1000 + hours
Flown 15+ contests
Past contest director
150 hours in the mountains.

A few years back, I was turning final for a land-out at Swee****er strip (45 miles south of Minden). At 300 feet I hit a large bump and thought about trying one turn in it to see if I could climb, but declined because my hard deck was 500 feet. I landed, called in, then I watched another sailplane hit the same bump, but he turned in it, climbed away and made it home. Should he be penalized? Maybe he had more experience than I had. Maybe he knew that when a west wind blew, it went around mount Patterson and then met again on the east side.......right where my big bump was found. We can't legislate judgement or experience!
JJ..............PS, I'm old enough to remember when the national rules were only 2 pages!

It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals were due to a 500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or percentage then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way the game is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero ....

I believe the intent of a hard deck would, indeed, be to change the way the game is played.

Lou

At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals
were
d=
ue to a 500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or
percent=
age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way
the
ga=
me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20


Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of at
least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this happened.
I'm sure there are many more...

RO

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-5, Michael Opitz wrote:
At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in Nationals
were
d=
ue to a 500 ft save during the contest. After a certain number or
percent=
age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing the way
the
ga=
me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20


Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of at
least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this happened.
I'm sure there are many more...

RO

I'd very much like to see the flight logs. These logs ought to be public domain, so let's shine some light on the subject.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

At 18:36 29 January 2018, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:45:06 AM UTC-5, Michael
Opitz wrote:
At 15:58 29 January 2018, Clay wrote:
It would be interesting to know how may podium finishes in
Nationals
were
d=
ue to a percent=
age then I think you can argue that you'd really be changing
the way
the
ga=
me is played with a hard deck. But if it's close to zero .... =20


Off hand, without doing any research whatsoever, I can think of
at
least one USA Nationals, and at least 3 WGC's where this
happened.
I'm sure there are many more...

RO

I'd very much like to see the flight logs. These logs ought to be
public
domain, so let's shine some light on the subject.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

Those that immediately came to my mind were from the time before
loggers.. 1958, 1983, 1985, 1988....

RO

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 7:10:52 AM UTC-7, wrote:
A few years back, I was turning final for a land-out at Swee****er strip (45 miles south of Minden). At 300 feet I hit a large bump and thought about trying one turn in it to see if I could climb, but declined because my hard deck was 500 feet. I landed, called in, then I watched another sailplane hit the same bump, but he turned in it, climbed away and made it home. Should he be penalized? Maybe he had more experience than I had. Maybe he knew that when a west wind blew, it went around mount Patterson and then met again on the east side.......right where my big bump was found. We can't legislate judgement or experience!
JJ..............PS, I'm old enough to remember when the national rules were only 2 pages!

I very much agree with you, JJ. A lot of what is magical about soaring and glider racing is the element of self-determination, operating independent of authorities and deciding your own fate. Towards that, I want to give up no airspace and I do not want any more cumbersome rules and restrictions. I want the liberty to make all of my own choices as I deem best for me. It's for those reasons that I opposed the original incarnation of hard deck.

Yet it is truly painfully for all of us that we are suffering too many serious accidents. It would seem that there is an opportunity to significantly reduce one of the several categories of accidents and give up almost nothing in terms of flying liberty. My proposition is that giving up only the altitude below 300 ft in the flats really is giving up almost nothing. If you might have glossed through my alternative hard deck proposal of yesterday afternoon, take a look at that as a separate consideration please. I know that it can only help the overall accident problem a wee bit -- perhaps it's just one guy every ten years that might be saved from his own temptation. Maybe he's worth saving if we can do it with no new rules and no new complications to how we fly contests?