Minutes of Fall 2014 USA Rules Committee meeting posted on SSA website

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:12:11 PM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 10:28:27 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:


Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

John Cochrane.

By "last year", John means 2013. And, John, I could just as easily point out that on Day 4 of that same contest, with a finish cylinder, a pilot kept pushing towards home thinking he would get lift and ended up landing just a very few miles out (about 7). You can't blame that one on a low minimum finish altitude, John, yet you don't ever mention it. Why not?

And, Luke, I will disagree strongly that a finish line and a close in steering point is a good idea. Why the heck would you want to drive everyone towards a point close to home, so they are at low altitude, looking at their GPS to make sure they get in or don't go out the far side of that circle, then have them turn and start looking out for the close corner of the finish line? If you use a line, leave it pure as a line, with a last turnpoint far enough away that you aren't funneling everyone together. Leave the final glide long and straight and let them be looking for traffic straight ahead, where everyone will be going. Know that altitudes and courses will be converging and that you need to be aware that not everyone will have taken the same final glide line that you did, so be looking left, right, up and down.

Now, I will throw fuel on the fire and join Hank under the desk. On a MAT, I would rather deal with gate hooking than a mandatory close in final turnpoint. Why? I (think I) am smart enough to not cut my final glide to the point where I will have no good options when I get back to the airport. Close in final turnpoints that could require a near 180 degree course reversal assure same altitude inbound and outbound traffic. But, my real preference for a MAT task is a finish cylinder with a good minimum height. Maybe that will quell the fire a bit with some? And make it worse with others.

Steve Leonard

It's an interesting question about where, and how high, you want to congregate traffic. In the end, if you intend to finish at the airport you are going to have a bunch of gliders coming together at whatever the finish height is (maybe zero if it's a gate). If it's a line with anything but a basically perpendicular final course line you will be concentrating that traffic at the close end of the gate and at the finish height. I was squeezed up against that point a few times 30 years ago. I still remember the experience vividly - including the other pilots. It works decently well on an AST (Fidler - you listening?) because you are all lined up on final glide and know who you are going to be dealing with at the finish 20-30 miles out. With modern tasks (TAT and MAT) I think you need a steering turn at least 20-30 miles out where people are at altitude and cruising, rather than on final glide where they all hit the turn on final glide at the same altitude. I'd still take converging traffic to a 1-mile cylinder at altitude over converging traffic to the edge of a gate at zero feet. In fact I'm not even sure how you'd do it on a MAT without a mandatory final turn where gliders could be trying to hook the gate going opposite directions at redline and zero feet - ouch!

9B

The final steering point does not have to be that close to home!

Luke

On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:28:27 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.

A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout..

Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?

John Cochrane.

I stirred it up simply to show that, in terms of pilot wants and needs, having the ability to have AHRS in their gliders is not even visible on the list. The RC should be working, as much as possible on elements pilots need and care about.
Very few pilots think they need, or care about, being able to have AHRS available to them.
I suspect this initiative is more about making smartphones legally usable in the cockpit, in no small part due to the potential attractiveness of tracking systems that might use them. If so, let's get it out and talk about that.
I'll go first with my position. It is that a phone has it's place which is stowed in a safe place by the pilot(maybe on his chute harness and turned OFF.
Back under the desk
UH

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 9:16:06 AM UTC-5, wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 11:28:27 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Exactly, when a finish line is used in conjunction with a steering point
it is a much safer option than a finish cylinder. The steering point
should be the same for all classes, or at least in the same area so that
all traffic is coming to the airport from the same direction and gives
the pilot the option of doing a flying or rolling finish...

Cheers
Luke Szczepaniak

The line vs. cylinder is not about geometry, it's about altitude. If you're all coming in the same direction at low altitude over houses and quarries, that doesn't help all that much.

A finish line -- which really means a low minimum finish altitude -- is a maneuver requiring delicate management of energy and last-minute landout options. 500 extra feet makes a world of difference in a last 5 mile landout.

Interesting observation at Hobbs last year, that none of the "new" (startng nationals since 2000 -- sadly not many) pilots had ever flown a line. Regionals don't use them, so there is precious little opportunity to practice this special skill. Which we promptly had to use. One famous pilot landing on a city street about 5 miles out.

Hank, oh hank, why did you have to stir this up?

John Cochrane.

I stirred it up simply to show that, in terms of pilot wants and needs, having the ability to have AHRS in their gliders is not even visible on the list. The RC should be working, as much as possible on elements pilots need and care about.
Very few pilots think they need, or care about, being able to have AHRS available to them.
I suspect this initiative is more about making smartphones legally usable in the cockpit, in no small part due to the potential attractiveness of tracking systems that might use them. If so, let's get it out and talk about that.
I'll go first with my position. It is that a phone has it's place which is stowed in a safe place by the pilot(maybe on his chute harness and turned OFF.
Back under the desk
UH

UH is exactly correct - the stuff about allowing AHRS is not related at all to a perceived need to have AHRS.

The issues being addressed is one of doing something to help boost interest in racing by making it possible observers to "watch" a race in nearly real time. To do this requires something like fast InReach (expensive) or a smartphone app (Sailplane Tracker).

Let me repeat this, the removal of limits on electronic equipment is meant as a way to enable better real time tracking and hopefully boost interest in racing.

The side effect however is that it opens a lot of doors once the smart phone is on (two way data, weather, monitoring of competitors position/progress, AHRS).

The fact that some pilots are currently being unsportsmanlike in their use of the technology anyway and the fact that this is very hard to police also figures in.

But again, this is an effort to utilize tracking to promote interest.

QT, RC Chair.

In cockpit cameras? OK, let's say we have a contest with 40 entries and they are equipped with 10 actual cockpit cameras and 30 dummies, which is supposed to scare people into compliance. The day's task is 3 hours. Who is going to sit there and review 30 hours of video, trying to find that elusive 30 seconds of cloud flying? And if you run it in fast-forward speed, you will probably miss it if you blink. Just thought I would point out that cockpit cameras are an empty threat unless all of the video is reviewed daily. Sounds like the most boring job in the world.

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:02:12 AM UTC-6, Luke Szczepaniak wrote: The final steering point does not have to be that close to home!
Luke

Trouble is, Luke, at least in the US, the "steering turn" for a MAT task, by our rules, cannot be more than 10 miles out (10.3.2.2.5). And I really see no need for a "Steering turn" on a TAT. You have defined where they are coming from, so why force them all close together just short of the finish and then keep them together for the short run home? Boggled my mind that at the Sports Nationals at TSA, they used a final turnpoint at 5 miles out with a one mile radius to a one mile radius finish cylinder on every task. MAT, TAT, and AST.

And, Andy, no matter what type of finish you use, you have converging traffic to a specific point (closest point on the line or cylinder, and minimum altitude), so you really can't choose one or the other (converge at the finish or converge at a final steering turn). You always have convergence at the finish, and the smaller your turn area, the more convergence you have there. But at intermediate turns, you have a greater chance of altitude spread.

Steve Leonard

I stirred it up simply to show that, in terms of pilot wants and needs, having the ability to have AHRS in their gliders is not even visible on the list. The RC should be working, as much as possible on elements pilots need and care about.
... UH

The thing pilots tell us most of all is that the rules are too complicated. If you'll look at the minutes, nobody said we should remove the equipment limits because pilots wanted to bring equipment. Quite the opposite. Removing the limitations chucked out pages and pages of rules that nobody was paying attention to because this just isn't a real-world problem. And if we're ever going to simplify rules, we have to be willing to make some line between pages and pages of rules to address hypothetical maybe someday problems and actual problems.

On the steering turn, let's recall there was a midair at Uvalde involving a steering turn. The FAA AIM advice that lots of traffic arrive at an airport at a decent altitude and then follow a standard pattern isn't all that bad.

John Cocharne

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:58:48 AM UTC-8, Steve Leonard wrote:
On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 8:02:12 AM UTC-6, Luke Szczepaniak wrote: The final steering point does not have to be that close to home!
Luke

Trouble is, Luke, at least in the US, the "steering turn" for a MAT task, by our rules, cannot be more than 10 miles out (10.3.2.2.5). And I really see no need for a "Steering turn" on a TAT. You have defined where they are coming from, so why force them all close together just short of the finish and then keep them together for the short run home? Boggled my mind that at the Sports Nationals at TSA, they used a final turnpoint at 5 miles out with a one mile radius to a one mile radius finish cylinder on every task. MAT, TAT, and AST.

And, Andy, no matter what type of finish you use, you have converging traffic to a specific point (closest point on the line or cylinder, and minimum altitude), so you really can't choose one or the other (converge at the finish or converge at a final steering turn). You always have convergence at the finish, and the smaller your turn area, the more convergence you have there. But at intermediate turns, you have a greater chance of altitude spread.

Steve Leonard

I agree with your geometric assessment Steve. I'd rather not have a MAT with no steering turn to a gate finish. Not sure if that's what you were arguing for. The 10 mile steering point may be too close to get a good altitude spread however.

9B

Snip...

On the steering turn, let's recall there was a midair at Uvalde involving a
steering turn. The FAA AIM advice that lots of traffic arrive at an
airport at a decent altitude and then follow a standard pattern isn't all
that bad.

Not being a contest pilot, I have no dog in this "fight" but a couple of the
comments and observations have come close to triggering my "kneejerk response
mode."

One was the point made that the writer would hate to be sucked up into a cloud
under the circumstances his phone-based AHRS would be turned-off-by-rule.
While I understand the stated position, it simultaneously tends to support the
truism: "A person can rationalize anything if s/he tries hard enough."

Another thought relates to the truism (supported by FAA statistics) that most
mid-airs occur in the airport traffic pattern...which to me is something of a
"Duh!" statistic. (It wouldn't surprise me if someone could also tease out a
strong correlation between the above stat and altitude IN the pattern, with
the preponderance of collisions being closer to the ground [as in, in the
narrowing portion of the approach cone].) In any event...

....when viewed in the above "normal pattern statistical light," an argument
can be made that a large portion of contest soaring's angst centered on this
aspect of contest finishes might accurately be restated as, "Which approach
pattern has the lowest overall (collision, off-field-landing,
high-stress-related) risks?"

Musingly...

Bob W.

On Wednesday, January 21, 2015 at 11:30:47 AM UTC-6, Andy Blackburn wrote:

I agree with your geometric assessment Steve. I'd rather not have a MAT with no steering turn to a gate finish. Not sure if that's what you were arguing for. The 10 mile steering point may be too close to get a good altitude spread however.

9B

I am not arguing for a MAT with a gate finish. If you use a MAT, for goodness sake just use a finish cylinder and keep it high enough and in close enough so there is time to sort out who lands first. Pretty sure we agree on this.

However, if I am forced to pick between two evils, I would rather have a MAT with a finish line and set direction, let the pilot choose if he wants to use a last turn that requires a gate hook or not than have a MAT with a mandatory last turn that is within 10 miles of the finish (as would be required for a steering turn under the present rules). Why? If I am setting myself up for a hook the end of the gate finish, I personally will add another 2-300 feet to my finish energy to be able to make the turn. I won't do it on the deck. I will be outside the area of the opposite direction traffic and probably above what they will get on their pull up when we might pass. And my eyes will be in the direction they will be coming from. I won't likely pick a final turnpoint that requires the gate hook, either. I would rather not have the chance of driving to a point and then heading home with someone driving for that same point, opposite my heading, at my altitude (I tend to fly final glides with more margin than most).

But just to be doubly clear. If I am flying a MAT, I want a finish cylinder, not a gate finish.

I am of the opinion that a final turnpoint in very close is something that should be avoided whenever possible, with the US finish rules.

The lesson learned from that terrible accident at Uvalde is to not do a near 180 degree course reversal close to home (even 20 miles out), as the altitude difference inbound to outbound and fat to squeaking is so little that you will almost assure near head on passes at minimal altitude separation. And it has been interesting to watch as a Task Advisor how this can be applied in the middle of a task to the point where the CD is on some days afraid to have a large direction reversal even with a large turn area. And other days, it never seems to enter his mind. Human Nature, I guess.

Steve Leonard