Finish lines

At 00:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
01-- Zero One wrote:
There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
that Kirk posited.

NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful
recoveries?


Sounds like hair-splitting to me.

9B

Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 00:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
01-- Zero One wrote:

There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
that Kirk posited.

NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful
recoveries?

Sounds like hair-splitting to me.

No Andy, it's not. I have recovered from an unintentional spin entry,
with water, at 400 to 500 feet. I know I wouldn't want to be a position
of trying to do the same at under 200 feet. We do have several recent
NTSB reports of gliders spinning in following 50 foot gate finishes.
Given that a large percentage (possibly the majority) of contests in the
past 2 years have used the allegedly dangerous finish cylinders, one
would expect to see a statistically significant number of finish
cylinder related accidents. Where are the NTSB reports?

Marc

At 04:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Andy Blackburn wrote:
At 00:00 06 May 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
01-- Zero One wrote:

There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
that Kirk posited.

NTSB reports? Or, are we just talking spins with successful
recoveries?

Sounds like hair-splitting to me.

No Andy, it's not. I have recovered from an unintentional
spin entry,
with water, at 400 to 500 feet. I know I wouldn't
want to be a position
of trying to do the same at under 200 feet. We do
have several recent
NTSB reports of gliders spinning in following 50 foot
gate finishes.
Given that a large percentage (possibly the majority)
of contests in the
past 2 years have used the allegedly dangerous finish
cylinders, one
would expect to see a statistically significant number
of finish
cylinder related accidents. Where are the NTSB reports?

Marc

My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be
so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder
encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach
the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide.
The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone
got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder
for me.

9B

"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
news
I have recovered from an unintentional spin entry, with water, at 400 to
500 feet.

So if we follow this line of logic then we should make the finish altitude a
minimum of 2000 feet to protect all of the pilots that can't manage their
energy correctly. That way we can protect them from themselves. It would
also allow the other guy that you spin into a chance to safely exit their
glider.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Andy Blackburn wrote:
My point was I don't think it's a great idea to be
so cavalier about low altitude spins. The 500' cylinder
encourages an aggressive, ballistic pull up to reach
the finish altitude for pilots on a marginal glide.
The gate doesn't - you just land. The fact that someone
got away with a spin at 400' is not a confidence-builder
for me.

Never mind, I keep forgetting to just stay out of this. I'd have a bit
more respect for your position if y'all would quit trying to convince
people its more dangerous to finish at 500 feet than at 50, but it
really doesn't matter. *I* have margin for error at 500 feet, I have
none at 50 or 100, tis adequate reason for me, clearly it isn't enough
for you, 'nuf said.

wrote:

"Now put him on his first marginal final glide where he has not yet
developed the complex energy picture and blows the finish , stalls and
spins in- fatally"

Funny, that's exactly my objection to the "500' at one mile" finish.
Joe Newbie blows his final glide, ends up at 450' and 60 knots at 1.1
miles, then tries to pull up over the "wire" cause he doesn't want to
pooch his finish in front of all the old heads. Hmm, low, slow,
pulling up - even if he doesn't spin he might end up with nothing left
to fly any sort of organized (read:safe) pattern.

And this is the "safer" finish JJ and others are pushing? Sorry, I
don't agree.

Wouldn't he still be better off though, and stand a better chance of
recovering from a stall, or even an incipient spin if he reacts quickly
enough, at 500 ft a mile out, than off a botched-up beat up over the
field. And there won't be spectators and other activities going on
directly under him.

CV

A couple years back at a regional contest I listened to a daily safety
talk given by Dick Butler regarding final glides. A couple points stuck
in my head, Dick won't fly final glides in the yellow band (starts at
about 105-115 kts on most modern sailplanes) and he will accept a very
high finish to do so. He considers energy management to have been
successful (optimum) if he can fly and finish his final glide at about
85 knots. An 85 kt finish obviously precludes any type of "wormburner"
finish. My personal observation is that the very best pilots almost
never do flashy low finishes even with plenty of energy. It's the
wannabes that tend to engage in that sort of stuff and I am not without
guilt in that area but have vowed to correct my past errors. 120 knots
through the gate at 50-100 feet might be successful energy management
but it is a failure of risk management, especially at a contest.
Flying gliders and racing gliders is all about energy management and
risk management.

On the other end of the spectrum is the low energy finish and the
pressure to fit into the pattern versus a rolling finish that
potentially has you landing head on into the rest of the traffic. It is
real easy to get fixated on finishing at a certain height (i.e. a LOW
height) and flying a pattern and that is one of the ways we end up with
the funky finish. Now if you only have enough energy to plop over the
fence the decision is easy, there will be no pattern because it is so
obvious you can't do it and that is a huge failure all its own (you
should have landed miles back...). Now lets say you've arrived over the
end of the field opposite the direction of landing and you're at 400
feet and 55 knots. You have been sweating the glide for miles and to
land straight ahead into traffic you are now in a high energy situation
to get down and stopped without rolling too far into the oncoming
traffic. That's a big shift in state of mind when you've been trying to
conserve every bit of energy during your final glide. I think its
precisely this situation that has caused the most trouble recently. If
we are going to "teach" final glides we would be well served to spend a
lot of time talking about low energy glides and when and how to knock it
off and get safe.

(disclosu A few weeks back I landed less than a mile from the
airfield when my final glide fell apart, if I had done it right I would
have landed 5 miles short of the field)

FM


wrote:
Maybe I haven't been entirely clear on my points.
I absolutely think we should be passing on the best information we know
how to with respect to how to fly well and safely and maybe even have a
little fun along the way.
I do admit to getting my hackles up when comments get made about why
don't "you, we, whatever" teach these guys how to do low finishes right
so we can all keep doing worm burners.
The fact is those of us who teach these new pilots try to do that and
more. Even so, we still have what some think is a problem that is
easily fixed by raising the finish height.
I have called many pilots aside with friendly advice after funky
finishes. Most took my input as good advice. A few did not. Two of
those had crashes within a year of counseling which were the result of
excessively low energy patterns.
The conclusion I draw from this is that marginal energy finishes and
related accident potential will continue if we keep the low gate.
When you blow the high gate there is still enough altitude to safely do
a pattern and take the rolling finish time.
All that said, I think we pretty much agree that sharing our knowledge
makes it better for everybody.
The critical point comes when somebody is expected to sign on the line
as to competency in a low level semi aerobatic maneuver.
Thanks for sharing
UH

Marc,

The finish line is a magnifying glass. The sins committed there are
repeated throughout the soaring day. Only difference is, everyone sees
and comments on them. The same and new errors will be made in the
finish cylinder, but out of sight of the peanut gallery. This isn't
safer; it just seems safer - a three-monkeys approach to safety. (And
yes, while you have more altitude under you, you've also increased the
likelihood and severity of collision.)

In a previous post, I pointed out how little it costs in points to opt
out of a 50-foot finish. Eight points max. On the other hand, the
cylinder represents some known problems (head-down piloting) and
unknown problems (traffic separation at the cylinder wall and
procedures after the clock stops).

Just because something "seems" safer, doesn't mean it is. And while we
blunt skulls may seem unreasonable in our commitment to the status quo,
some of us would rather deal with the risks we understand than journey
off into the unknown.

I and others have pointed out, in this and other threads, some of those
variables. I've seen mixed results in how these questions have been
addressed. One thing is certain... any finish is a high-density,
high-risk environment, and my own experience is that I spend far too
much of my time looking at instruments while approaching the cylinder
for my own comfort (and for yours). When I call four miles, I want my
head out of the cockpit 99% percent of the time. This simply isn't
realistic with the cylinder. We need to fully understand where the
benefit of lower density outweighs the effects of greater pilot
distraction. A blue day AST or TAT raises the potential density of the
finish, and thus the importance of heads up piloting.

I could be converted. But it's clear the cylinder hasn't been
adequately vetted. There's too large a penalty for rolling finishes,
which means pilots will be trying all sorts of tricks to clip the
bottom, flying at low speeds into high-speed, high-density traffic. And
there's no standardization for pattern entry based on energy after
entering the cylinder.

For instance, at the Std Class Nats in Montague I didn't begin dumping
water until after I pierced the finish cylinder. After finishing, I
would pull up to 800 feet agl, open the dumps, and wander around the
vicinity of the IP until I reached pattern altitude. After all, why
should I take the performance penalty of dumping water if I have
several minutes after the finish to lighten the glider before landing?
Multiply this by 10, introduce variables in speed, altitude, wing
loading, and pattern planning, and the IP becomes an increasingly
dangerous environment.

Where does this leave the guy who has difficulty judging whether he
ought to light the burners or break off for a rolling finish? Or a
pilot who cannot execute a brief 2-g pull and 180 degree turn to final?
How will they deal with inserting themselves into a much more dynamic
pattern with several other gliders, with lots of opportunity to raise
the level of confusion?

The cylinder has its uses, especially for open-ended MATs where racing
is likely to take place in all four quadrants, but there's much
homework yet to be done. Yes, you remove one highly visible maneuver -
one the vast the majority of pilots can safely and successfully execute
and introuduce a fistfull of unknowns that will affect everyone. Don't
like the finish line? Can't judge energy? Can't execute the manuever?
Don't light the burners. Why must I be exposed to what I believe is a
potentially dangerous environment without choice because a handful of
pilots are promulgating a "solution" that hasn't yet received due
diligence (amply demonstrated by its proponents' inability to
adequately address well-reasoned safety concerns)?

I suppose the thing that irks me is not so much that this is a "lowest
common denominator" solution, rather that it will have very little
impact on safety. We'll improve things for a few pilots, yet expose all
pilots to other safety concerns. And while we've netted a few hundred
feet of cushion beneath those pilots who need it, that doesn't improve
their ability to stay out of trouble elsewhere on course. It simply
defers ignorance out of sight of the home drome.

By the way, when was the last time you saw someone thermalling half a
mile from the finish line? Or intentionally busting a gaggle at 140
knots? These aren't unreasonable scenarios and require only the same
lack of judgement displayed by pilots who can't navigate a finish line.
Remember the start gate? Thermalling wasn't allowed. Why? Doesn't the
finish cylinder raise exactly the same concerns? So why wasn't this
addressed? Why aren't YOU asking these questions? After all, your bent
is toward making the sport safer, right?

Safety is my primary concern. Which is to say, if I believed the
cylinder was inherently safer, I'd be writing in equal volume in favor.
But it's clearly not the cure-all some propose. At best, not yet.

OC

Other skill sports require certification before you can participate as
a contestant. Showing up at a racetrack with a formula "anything" won't
get you a start position.

SSA sanctioned sailplane racing also has some gatekeeping. Perhaps we
need to discuss whether a Silver C is an adequate prerequisite to race.

There have actually been some with exactly the scenario
that Kirk
posited.

Please provide us with the details of these finish
cylinder accidents. I'm not aware of any.
JJ