Visulalizing the Finish Cylinder

I don't know you Herb and you don't know me so why post personal
insults
like this? Just to make sure that you understand things.....I am a
pediatric intensivist and have seen many, many children die. You are
sorely
mistaken if you somehow think you know more than I about grieving. ..

Casey,

You are certainly right, I wouldn't know how you might console a
grieving family, I went too far in a bad attempt to be cynical.
Comparing the situation I described with pre-start gaggles and
on-course situations including multiple gliders in the same airspace
doesn't make sense. The altitude and low RELATIVE speeds give us
second chances that we don't have down low and when flying in opposing
directions. I have flown through many finish gates feeling just as
exhilarated as you and enjoying every moment of it. Sad thing is that
the outcome of a midair in that situation just doesn't leave us any
second chances. Let's do our low finishes away from the contest crowds
with a reliable spotter on the ground that makes sure nobody else might
get involved.

Again, sorry for getting personal with you and anyone else feeling
strongly about flying low and fast and let's all be careful out there!

Herb, J7

Well, I'm still on the fence, even after wading through the last 100 or so
posts. I see positives AND negatives in both sides of the Gate vs. Cylinder
argument. I appreciate folks like JJ and OC taking the time to put some
structure around the argument - maybe we can stick to that approach?

Let's break this into two different issues:

1. Arrival over the field with insufficient energy with the "50 foot gate."
This certainly a topic worth addressing, but I'm not sure the cylinder is
the only answer. A (seemingly) simple approach is to just raise the floor to
some other number, say 200 feet for argument's sake. I'm not suggesting this
is what we should do, but it does seem that the issue of arriving at the
airport with an altitude safety margin can be addressed in different ways.

2. So, I'm really drawn to the discussion about avoiding midairs. I'm not
convinced by either JJs logic or OCs rebuttal - yet. Here's my thinking.
Both approaches are, in practical terms, a line. One just happens to be
curved. Okay, starting to sound like Bill Clinton here... hang on. By this I
mean the following:

- On MOST (not all) days, the majority of finishers are approaching from the
same quadrant. The one exception is the MAT, but even then, there is usually
a preferred quadrant, either based on geography, soaring conditions on the
day, location of the close-in turnpoint, etc. For all practical purposes,
we're all headed for a reasonably small chunk of airspace at the end of the
flight. When we talk of a midair, we have to think of a number of different
scenarios:

* Lateral convergence on the finish run (ie. two ships at the same altitude
converging wingtip to wingtip)

* Vertical convergence on the finish run (ie. two ships at different
altitudes converging canopy to belly)

* Head on finish run (no clarification required)

* Pattern vs. finisher (ie. one ship on finish run conflicting with others
in the pattern)

I'm still doodling this stuff on paper, but so far, I can see some pros and
cons to both. One thing that is obvious in drawing some pictures is that
gate-hooking (the cause of my scariest moments over the last 15 years) could
easily be avoided by modifying the procedures. We seem to have equated the
"optical gate" with a finish line without thinking about the possibilities
now that flights are controlled 100% by GPS. For instance, steering turns
with x radius located y miles out. It sounds complicated, but it really
isn't. Task sheet would read something like this:

Start- Cylinder A

Turpoint 1 - Rockville

Turpoint 2 - Sink Hole

Turnpoint 3 - Ridgeville

Finish Point B

Finish Line

No fix within the Finish Point = landout Thus, it puts some real teeth
into knowing the finish direction and makes it a conscious part of any
after-launch task change. Anyway, I hope we can keep disecting the problem
without resorting to name calling - I owe it to the wife and kids.

P3

At 03:00 21 March 2005, 1moclimb wrote:
I don't know you Herb and you don't know me so why
post personal
insults
like this? Just to make sure that you understand things.....I
am a
pediatric intensivist and have seen many, many children
die. You are
sorely
mistaken if you somehow think you know more than I
about grieving. ..


Casey,

You are certainly right, I wouldn't know how you might
console a
grieving family, I went too far in a bad attempt to
be cynical.
Comparing the situation I described with pre-start
gaggles and
on-course situations including multiple gliders in
the same airspace
doesn't make sense. The altitude and low RELATIVE
speeds give us
second chances that we don't have down low and when
flying in opposing
directions. I have flown through many finish gates
feeling just as
exhilarated as you and enjoying every moment of it.
Sad thing is that
the outcome of a midair in that situation just doesn't
leave us any
second chances. Let's do our low finishes away from
the contest crowds
with a reliable spotter on the ground that makes sure
nobody else might
get involved.

Again, sorry for getting personal with you and anyone
else feeling
strongly about flying low and fast and let's all be
careful out there!

Herb, J7

Points to Herb for maturity and humility....

9B

Wish I had time to keep wrangling this one with you, but work keeps
getting in the way. Anyway, we are both indulging a little hyperbole to
suit our arguments. That said, others are trying to measure the pros
and cons of each. If I could boil my argument down to a single phrase,
it would be "don't put so much trust in the cylinder." It has problems
too.

There are cleary scenarios where the cylinder is a better choice. There
are also scenarios where the finish line is preferred. Mixing them
makes sense. But in both cases we need to put some language on paper
and make pilots read it, understand it, and follow a set of procedures
that reduce the risks inherent in each. For example, when and how to
call approach to the cylinder. ("OC, 4 miles" --from the cylinder, not
the center point-- "from the SSE at 1700 msl and 130 knots")
Translated: I'm high, I'm fast. If you are inching your way to the
cylinder just high enough to nick 500 agl, you might want to give me a
heads up.

Hooking the finish gate. This seems to be the overriding concern of
most people responding. I can understand this. This is so easily solved
that it surprises me it's a problem. Tell Charlie not to admonish
pilots for asking for gate direction confirmation. It's just too
important to make into a "Why don't you guys read the task sheet"
exercise. Set a steering turnpoint as suggested and require a radio
call as you approach it. Penalize any pilot flying through the gate the
wrong way 1000 points for unsafe flying. (World Champions are keenly
attuned to protecting their points.) Or, ROTATE THE GATE!!! This is so
simple, I'm surprised no one has considered it. Make the airport
boundaries the endpoints of the finish line, and set the gate
perpendicular to the final leg of each task. (This solves JJs problem
of all pilots racing to the nearest point on the gate as all points on
a rotating gate are pretty much the same distance from the last
turnpoint.) Use a cylinder for pilot option MATs and a line for ASTs
and TATs. And establish adequate procedures... radio and airmanship for
each.

No doubt about it, head ons are scary. Odd we haven't heard anyone say
"I don't want to do this anymore because I'm afraid I'll stall spin at
some point after the finish." This is the most common accident
associated with the gate. And it never appears to be the result of near
misses. I'll also point out that no one, absolutely no one has
suggested we ban SE ridge missions at Mifflin. More head on traffic
there in an hour than you're likely to see in a lifetime anywhere else
(well, I guess the Whites and St. Auban are right up there as well).

JJ, I like the finish gate for all the reasons I've stated. I enjoy
applying the required skills and enjoy doing it with others. If we can
make it better and safer, I'm all for it. I'll ask you to take the next
step with the cylinder... stop talking density and start drafting some
regs that give me and others the sense that we're not going to get
mowed down during the finish implosion. Remember, everyone is
navigating to the same point. And the mechanics of the finish require
us to be more heads down than we would like. I'm coming to Montague
next year for the Nats, and if you are the CD, I want to be sure that
everyone understands how we're going to maintain safe separation as we
approach the cylinder, some of us at warp speed after a good thermal at
Callaghan, others contour flying Gunsight at best L/D.

OK, now I really gotta go.


wrote:
My, My Oscar Charlie, Don't know where to start with all that?
Explain
to me again how spreading out the finishers over a 30 degree arc
gives
more crowding than funneling them through the nearest corner of the
finish line?

When using the finish line the CD changes the finish direction in
accordance with each day's task; this leads to "doing it like
yesterday" and has often been the reason someone finishes in the
wrong
direction. I consider this the most dangerous situation in soaring.
Can't happen with the cylinder.

How about my favorite maneuver, hooking the gate. Don't need that
with
the cylinder, do we? You gave us a distorted view of an AST finish,
bet
you don't want to talk about a MAT, now do you? The cylinder provides
360 degrees of finish airspace for the MAT. Your finish
line.........................well, you get the message, or do you?
:) JJ

Herb,

Didn't see this before I posted. Thanks. You've earned my respect. My
respect may not count for much in the scheme of things, but even a
penny gained...

Fly safe. The best part of soaring is sitting around in the evening
remembering the particulars of your flight with friends over a cold
beer. Everything should be geared towards a safe arrival home, whether
by trailer, through a finish gate, through the wall of a cylinder, or a
simple, unhurried arrival at the IP.

OC

Rotate the gate?
Alternate gates?
My God, we got people that can't remember which way to finish and your
solution is to use the finish line one day and the finish cylinder, the
next? Have you ever heard the term KISS? It stands for Keep It Simple,
Stupid and is a time honered way to prevent screw-ups. We have contests
with several classes and they don't all go on the same task. To further
complicate things, we often change tasks, sometimes in the air. The
KISS rule is now streatched pretty thin and you want to add another
layer of confusion by "rotating the gate"? Which way and for which
class? BTW, rotating doesn't solve anything, the pilots will still head
for the nearest corner, won't they?
I see your comments as nothing more than attempt to keep alive a dying
dinosaur, so that you can continue to have "fun". P7 shared his near
death experience in the dinosaur gate and you told him there was poor
judgement and ignorance involved. Well, now we have a point on which we
can agree; Poor judgement to keep using the proven unsafe finish gate
and ignorance on the part of an organization that continues to allow
its use.
JJ Sinclair
BTW, you'll see no dinosaurs at Montague.

Chris:
Mixing finish line and cylinder on the same day is
a very bad idea,
though it happens (most regionals have FAI and sports
classes).
I don't think that it what you were advocating however,
just
that both options should be available, which is obviously
correct.
howard

The finish gate at TSA, when I CD a contest is a line. All task's will
have a final turnpoint 5 miles south of TSA. This way we funnel all
finishers the same direction. No finishers are allowed over the runway,
they must finish on the east side of the field for a landing to the
south. 95% of our contests have a south wind.

You guys are trying to legislate rules by common sense...Common sense is
hard to find.

Sam Fly

wrote:
Herb,

Didn't see this before I posted. Thanks. You've earned my respect. My
respect may not count for much in the scheme of things, but even a
penny gained...

Fly safe. The best part of soaring is sitting around in the evening
remembering the particulars of your flight with friends over a cold
beer. Everything should be geared towards a safe arrival home, whether
by trailer, through a finish gate, through the wall of a cylinder, or a
simple, unhurried arrival at the IP.

OC

Hi Papa 3,
There is something else going on is US racing that hasn't beed
mentioned. We're not calling the old Assigned task very much, any more;
Parowan last year----5 TAT's and only 1 AST
Standard's " " ----2 MAT's and 2 TAT's
Seniors this year-----2 AST's and 4 TAT's

So what does this have to do with the finish?
The vast majority will be coming from other than a known last turn
point. They may be coming from all directions in the case of the MAT
and from a wide quadrant in the case of the TAT, depending on its
radius and distance from home plate. If for no other reason, this makes
it a "No Brainer" to use the finish cylinder.
JJ

At 17:30 21 March 2005, wrote:
Hi Papa 3,
There is something else going on is US racing that
hasn't beed
mentioned. We're not calling the old Assigned task
very much, any more;
Parowan last year----5 TAT's and only 1 AST
Standard's ' ' ----2 MAT's and 2 TAT's
Seniors this year-----2 AST's and 4 TAT's

The vast majority will be coming from other than a
known last turn
point. They may be coming from all directions in the
case of the MAT
and from a wide quadrant in the case of the TAT, depending
on its
radius and distance from home plate. If for no other
reason, this makes
it a 'No Brainer' to use the finish cylinder.

Your last two posts are your best arguments to-date
JJ. Perversely it's less
about inherent safety of one finish versus the other
and more about simple
practicality of making it work with contemporary task
calling.

A gate doesn't make sense if you can't define a finish
course line to the
gate so we're not going to see many gate finishes if
people don't call
suitable tasks. The mixed class tasking at regionals
also makes it harder
to use anything but the common denominator finish.


So we are either left calling only ASTs and TATs with
decent final legs, or
having a set of steering turnpoints at the end of every
task for all classes.
Only the truly dedicated will adopt these additional
tasking constraints just
to have a finish gate.

So you see you don't really need to kill the gate because
it's already dead.
Of course beating a dead horse is a time-honored tradition
here. g

9B