SSA 2018 Rules Finish Penalty

John, hate to say it, but crashes are innevitable when people with large egos are involved in any sort of racing. We will never be able to "legislate" absolute safety, and guys will forever take risks to win. Sure some rule making is common sense based. But, there is an ever increasing trend to try to substitute rules for experience. It has never worked.

A close look at your very own data in the link you posted shows that the accidents that were fatal were stall spin. Anyone who has a smiggen of aeronautical sense, if screwing up a final glide and running out of options, will put there ship down straight ahead, you gotta work hard at killing yourself setting your ship down even into the trees if it is done in a controlled fashion. Two of the accidents were stall spin while trying to do a pattern, most likely while low, another screw up totally preventable.

As your data shows, the greatest combined source of accidents is found in off field landings and midairs. If that is the case, where are all the rules/regs to mitigate those accidents? I think what no one wants to say is accidents close to the field are publicity attractors, negative that is, and the concern is about our image and possible FAA intervention.

Yes we had fatalities during the "good old days " 70's-80's-90's. I witnessed a few myself, but things are not safer now. That is a fallacy. We had 60 sometimes 70 sailplanes racing a single national and absolutely huge regionals as well. We have 1/3 of that now with an accident rate that has not decreased in pace with the shrinking participation. Racing has not gotten safer. There is so much inner cockpit distraction and blind dependance on, at times, overly optomistic flight computers, that guys are stretching way beyond their natural abilities, much more so than when we had to make educated guesses based on what our asses were telling us.

A very good case can be made emphatically and statistically that racing is more dangerous today, due to the above mentioned point as well as the fact that performance has progressed to the point where an off field landing is such a rare occurrence guys do not have the experience level they need in their ship to safely make an off field landing, which used to be a normal occurrence in any contest.

To incentivize finishing above a certain height there should be s bonus and not a penalty. A landing at the airport has the potential for a full points finish. Hit the finish cylinder above a certain height gains a bonus. Punitive measures encourage gaming to avoid the hit which often results in unsafe behavior the rule is intended to discourage.

Kev, I really like that concept. That seems a much easier and more "encouraging" way to go about encouraging a different flying mindset.

On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:00:28 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
This is simply not true. Crashes are not inevitable. When there is a huge points advantage to clearing the fence by 10 feet and plopping it down for a rolling finish, people will do it. The crash results prove it. The high finishes have essentially cured the longstanding problems. Be clear: the issue is not low high speed finishes. The issue is the possibility, and hence the competitive necessity, to accept Mc 0 + 10 feet final glides, and the consequent last minute 1-2 mile out landings, or last minute low energy maneuvering at the airport. If the rules allow it, and you don't do it, you will lose contests.

BTW, I finished 250 feet low at Uvalde, it largely cost me the contest, and I'm not complaining. Yes it was a safe approach to the airport. But I did not make the task.

John Cochrane

I agree with John. If you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a 1000 ft high finish line to avoid a penalty, by the same logic you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a rolling finish to avoid death. The flying skills required in either case are identical - only the consequences are different. To assert otherwise is completely illogical. In fact, allowing low finishes replaces skill with risk taking as the major competitive advantage in final glides. The idea that "airmanship" or "experience" are the difference is specious: accepting a lot of risk and finding a little luck will put you on the podium ahead of someone whose greater experience informs him that it is not worth the risk. A high finish removes the risk and makes only experience and skill count.

The attitude of many here seems to be that soaring is inherently a risky sport, so don't bother with making it less so. I can tell you that where I fly, the most often mentioned reason among fellow pilots for not flying contests is that it is too risky - competition rewards risk and to be competitive they would need to fly with higher risk of a crash than they would otherwise. For those who want glider competition to just be about who will take the greatest risk, there are many other sports that offer that attraction.

On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:00:28 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
This is simply not true. Crashes are not inevitable. When there is a huge points advantage to clearing the fence by 10 feet and plopping it down for a rolling finish, people will do it. The crash results prove it. The high finishes have essentially cured the longstanding problems. Be clear: the issue is not low high speed finishes. The issue is the possibility, and hence the competitive necessity, to accept Mc 0 + 10 feet final glides, and the consequent last minute 1-2 mile out landings, or last minute low energy maneuvering at the airport. If the rules allow it, and you don't do it, you will lose contests.

BTW, I finished 250 feet low at Uvalde, it largely cost me the contest, and I'm not complaining. Yes it was a safe approach to the airport. But I did not make the task.

John Cochrane

I agree with John. If you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a 1000 ft high finish line to avoid a penalty, by the same logic you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a rolling finish to avoid death. The flying skills required in either case are identical - only the consequences are different. To assert otherwise is completely illogical. In fact, allowing low finishes replaces skill with risk taking as the major competitive advantage in final glides. The idea that "airmanship" or "experience" are the difference is specious: accepting a lot of risk and finding a little luck will put you on the podium ahead of someone whose greater experience informs him that it is not worth the risk. A high finish removes the risk and makes only experience and skill count.

The attitude of many here seems to be that soaring is inherently a risky sport, so don't bother with making it less so. I can tell you that where I fly, the most often mentioned reason among fellow pilots for not flying contests is that it is too risky - competition rewards risk and to be competitive they would need to fly with higher risk of a crash than they would otherwise. For those who want glider competition to just be about who will take the greatest risk, there are many other sports that offer that attraction.

John, no one is talking about removing the penalty. Bob is simply saying that the penalty is too harsh. Arriving at 400 feet agl with 100 pts penalty would still send a strong message not to do it. Why does it need to be 400 pts? The 400 feet agl is a lot of altitude, so it is less about safety and more about punishment, very discouraging when a day ends early.

I personally never take final glide risks, once however even with plenty of altitude to spare I came close to getting a small penalty. Even if you do everything right and have spare altitude things can happen.

Knowing I could reach an airport at 400 feet is better than looking for a thermal at 800 feet 3 miles out, sometimes over unlandable terrain, not to mention in the path of many incoming gliders. Yes I have seen it myself.

Again small penalty is also discouraging and probably sufficient.

Having thought about all the different final glide scenarios a lot and having made at least half a dozen proposals to the RC over the past four years, I can say with some confidence that a simple calculation of how many points you give up sticking with a slow climb and fixing that to an arrival height penalty gradient only works in a world where pilots have perfect information about what lies ahead on final glide.

While pilots may not be explicitly aware of this, the decision to take a sub-par climb at X miles from home is implicitly a probabilisitic calculation.. Mathematically, you have to consider the pilot estimation of the probability of finding a better climb than the current sub-par one somewhere between their current position and home. If it is late in the day and you re 50 miles from home at 5000' AGL climbing an 1.5 knots what probability do you assign to the outcome that this is the last thermal of the day versus the outcome that you'll find a better climb somewhere in the next 35-40 miles. This is a pretty common scenario. The penalty gradient (pts/ft) is the value that arbitrates between choosing one path or the other. A higher penalty gradient shifts the decision more toward staying with the slow climb rather than rolling the dice. There are at least half a dozen other cantgories of final glide scenarios with their own unique decision logic, this is just one of them.

I'm inclined to agree that "get-home-itis" will likely dominate on final glides gone bad in the last few miles or so. Given all that, a flat penalty gradient of somewhere between 0.5 and 1.0 point per foot would be a simpler option for a 1000' gate. Pilots seem not to like the simpler option because 100 points for 100' low seems too harsh - hence the two-tier gradient. It doesn't have any cliff like the old rule so it's a continuous curve, but an accelerating one. Personally, I'd be in favor of upping the penalty gradient from the first foot - it alters the calculation on the one scenario over which pilots have the most decision-making control. But, we make compromises based on feedback and pilots seem to like the "smaller penalties for smaller errors". Okay - two tiers.

Jon is right (as is John) - the only difference between an incomplete task at 400' and an incomplete task at 0' is the pilot's tolerance for personal risk. There are some pilots who feel that the ability to overcome the fear of a catastrophic crash is a "skill" that ought to be measured in glider racing. I'm inclined to agree that it is not likely a participation-building approach. If it's the worm-burner pass that people miss (I do), then there are ways to allow for that. For instance, I've always been fond of the idea of a 1000'/4-mile altitude check prior to a no altitude limit line finish as a way to enforce sufficient finish energy. That also addresses some claims (which I don't agree with) that finishing with extra energy is more hazardous because it gives pilots "too may" options to maneuver rather than needing to land "right NOW". I've seen five glider on base an final with no alternative options at a single runway airport and it wan't pretty.

My 2c.

Andy Blackburn
9B


On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 2:54:46 PM UTC-8, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Tuesday, January 2, 2018 at 4:48:54 PM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Monday, January 1, 2018 at 8:00:28 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
This is simply not true. Crashes are not inevitable. When there is a huge points advantage to clearing the fence by 10 feet and plopping it down for a rolling finish, people will do it. The crash results prove it. The high finishes have essentially cured the longstanding problems. Be clear: the issue is not low high speed finishes. The issue is the possibility, and hence the competitive necessity, to accept Mc 0 + 10 feet final glides, and the consequent last minute 1-2 mile out landings, or last minute low energy maneuvering at the airport. If the rules allow it, and you don't do it, you will lose contests.

BTW, I finished 250 feet low at Uvalde, it largely cost me the contest, and I'm not complaining. Yes it was a safe approach to the airport. But I did not make the task.

John Cochrane

I agree with John. If you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a 1000 ft high finish line to avoid a penalty, by the same logic you cannot with reasonably certainty nail a rolling finish to avoid death. The flying skills required in either case are identical - only the consequences are different. To assert otherwise is completely illogical. In fact, allowing low finishes replaces skill with risk taking as the major competitive advantage in final glides. The idea that "airmanship" or "experience" are the difference is specious: accepting a lot of risk and finding a little luck will put you on the podium ahead of someone whose greater experience informs him that it is not worth the risk. A high finish removes the risk and makes only experience and skill count.

The attitude of many here seems to be that soaring is inherently a risky sport, so don't bother with making it less so. I can tell you that where I fly, the most often mentioned reason among fellow pilots for not flying contests is that it is too risky - competition rewards risk and to be competitive they would need to fly with higher risk of a crash than they would otherwise. For those who want glider competition to just be about who will take the greatest risk, there are many other sports that offer that attraction.

Just to highlight Andy's excellent point: The issue is not height at finish.. The issue is height in the last mile or so, and the competitive necessity to do occasional 55 knot final glides to just barely clear trees around the airport.

This is solved with a steering turn that has a minimum altitude leaving 25:1 or so glide, or 30:1 + 500 feet, or with a ring or cylinder at 2 miles or so imposing 600-800 feet, after which pilots can finish on a line, or buzz the airport to their hearts' content. The grand prix has steering turns with minimum altitudes, so that should even cheer up the "follow the FAI" set. (These are the real minimums, they must be higher if you want US style graduated penalties)

If what you want really is the thrill of buzzing the airport at the end of a long cross country flight, it is easy to do that without bringing back the historic litter of fiberglass (then) in the last mile or so.

John Cochrane

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 9:40:00 AM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Just to highlight Andy's excellent point: The issue is not height at finish. The issue is height in the last mile or so, and the competitive necessity to do occasional 55 knot final glides to just barely clear trees around the airport.

This is solved with a steering turn that has a minimum altitude leaving 25:1 or so glide, or 30:1 + 500 feet, or with a ring or cylinder at 2 miles or so imposing 600-800 feet, after which pilots can finish on a line, or buzz the airport to their hearts' content. The grand prix has steering turns with minimum altitudes, so that should even cheer up the "follow the FAI" set. (These are the real minimums, they must be higher if you want US style graduated penalties)

If what you want really is the thrill of buzzing the airport at the end of a long cross country flight, it is easy to do that without bringing back the historic litter of fiberglass (then) in the last mile or so.

John Cochrane

Also reinforce 9B and BB here. I am not one of the "pilots who feel that the ability to overcome the fear of a catastrophic crash is a "skill" that ought to be measured in glider racing."

And I continue to be amused about this "too stiff an altitude penalty" point of view. What it tells me is that for those pilots the task ends at the airport regardless of what the rules say. It also argues for awarding speed points when you land short of the airport. After all, I almost made it...

John,

I know that at the last two junior WGC's, pilots earned speed points without landing at the airfield.

In Australia the finish height was zero or very low.

In Lithuania the finish height was semi reasonable but with a strong headwind and club class gliders in the second to last day all the finishers opted to land out.

I know the women's world's had similar issues and I recall same kind of stories from Argentina.

So maybe this idea of having to finish at the airport is purely an american belief. Clearly the FAI does not care if you make it home.

On Wednesday, January 3, 2018 at 10:30:01 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
John,

I know that at the last two junior WGC's, pilots earned speed points without landing at the airfield.

In Australia the finish height was zero or very low.

In Lithuania the finish height was semi reasonable but with a strong headwind and club class gliders in the second to last day all the finishers opted to land out.

I know the women's world's had similar issues and I recall same kind of stories from Argentina.

So maybe this idea of having to finish at the airport is purely an american belief. Clearly the FAI does not care if you make it home.

Tony,
Whichever John you are addressing (assume me).

1. There is no requirement (anymore) in US Rules to land at the airport after finishing the task. This is true whether the task ends at a 2 mi circle or a finish line on the airport.

2. I guess I didn't make myself clear. IMO pilots who say e.g. "you should have a linear penalty for crossing the finish ring low" are effectively saying: If you have a finish line, you should still get speed points for landing short.

I am baffled by this paradoxical thinking. The only way I can make any sense of it is to assume that the in these pilots' minds, even with a finish circle, the task really ends at the airport.

I treat both the finish ring with min altitude and the zero height finish line the same philosophically - if you hit the "ground" first you didn't finish. No speed points for not finishing.

In the US rules, there is some forgiveness for the first 200' to accommodate instrument errors vs logger data.