A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #91  
Old January 26th 18, 06:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.

As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.

Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.

Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.
  #92  
Old January 26th 18, 06:34 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Dan Marotta
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,601
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Make radar altimeters mandatory in glider competition.Â* Of course, if
one is low and flies over a feed lot with a very large pile of bovine
excrement (looking for a fragrant thermal), he might break the hard
deck... ;-)

On 1/25/2018 11:59 AM, Steve Koerner wrote:
Even over strictly flat flying areas, the hard deck idea has serious problems:

1. Someone here already pointed out that a pilot's motivation to not land out is partially about points, for sure, but also about the various practical hardships (plus embarrassment) that result from not making it home. The incremental difference in flying behavior would be small at best.

2. The fact that you have scored the poor SOB as landing out due to his "hard deck" altitude, does not place a safe landing beneath him. If the next turnpoint is straight ahead and the best farm field was back over there, one's problems and temptations are not magically resolved by a hard deck rule. The exercise of marginally bad judgement about where to turn back for a safe landing under hard deck rules has a very good chance of having a quite similar consequence as exercising marginally bad judgement under present rules and circumstances. To a significant degree, the problem is moved, but not eliminated.

3. There is no way for a pilot in his cockpit to know whether he has become subject to the rule or not. GPS makes only a crude estimation of altitude. Pressure based altitude works at the home airport where reference pressure is known indirectly by field elevation referencing before takeoff and after landing. The pilot is able to set his altimeter at the home airport. At a remote location late in the day, the pilot will not have a pressure reference available to him and consequently will not know his altitude accurately enough for the proposed purposes. His altimeters are not accurate and furthermore he has no ability to guess how well the scorer's interpolation of local pressure will play out over time and map position. The result will be, that for competitive reasons, he will need to assume that he is not landed out -- likely all the way until exactly the same height at which he would have otherwise committed to a landing. The idea doesn't work.


--
Dan, 5J
  #93  
Old January 26th 18, 06:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

And hope the cows "break the wind"
  #94  
Old January 26th 18, 07:11 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
krasw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 668
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.
  #95  
Old January 26th 18, 07:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Very interesting having a hard deck for a contest out of Truckee. What would the hard deck be on the Pine Nuts coming home?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.

As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.

Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.

Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.


  #96  
Old January 26th 18, 07:47 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Well Krasw your free to enact any additional rules you want over there. We're independent revolutionary individualistic freedom loving self responsibility minded americans. Give it a go. If you make it work maybe we will adopt it over here.
  #97  
Old January 26th 18, 07:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

Well Johnathan, thats the question isn't it. One guy posted on here that the hard deck would apply mostly to the average valley floors, and guys would be free to "scrap the rocks" as much as they want while crossing ridges or trying to soar the slopes. But as we know most guys kill themselves screwing up in the mtns, not over the valleys. Now we end up with another new rule that doesn't do much regarding true safety except for the guy who screws up thermalling low in a valley.
  #98  
Old January 26th 18, 08:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

This thread has been more interesting in getting a feel for the general mindset of competitors than it has in actually solving any safety issues.

I think for me it is revealing three very distinct modalities of thought.:
1. The paradigm of more rules=more safety.
2. The paradigm of more rules=fairer competition, eliminating points for risk takers.
3. Some guys just accept competition as it is, want to prevent any further curtailments of someone trying to define a flying style,and accept the resulting consequences both in contest standing and in contest risk.

I don't think there will ever be a solution to satisfy all three mindsets.
  #99  
Old January 26th 18, 08:16 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

That reminder has been made pretty much at every contest since about 1950. Charlie Spratt was particularly effective. He asked who can remember who even won the contest two years ago. The effects of this policy on contest behavior is evident.
  #100  
Old January 26th 18, 08:22 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 351
Default RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

The minden valley is about 4700 and pretty benign, so I'd put the hard deck in that area at 5500' MSL. The point is to not give points for low altitude thermaling.

The hard deck is not intended to stop pilots from doing stupid things, nor is it intended to stop too close ridge soaring.

A more ambitious CD might put in a final turnpoint over the pine nuts with a minimum altitude, to ensure a safe lake Tahoe crossing. Final turnpoints with minimum altitudes are used in the SGP to ensure reasonable final glides, and the idea is more broadly applicable. But that's a separate idea. Let's keep it simple for now.

John Cochrane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
de Havilland Canada DHC-6 Twin Otter pics 1 [03/11] - DeHavilland-Canada-DHC-6-100-Twin-Otter-Chile-Air-Force-Fuerza-Aerea-De-Chile-Twin-Engine-Airplane-Aircraft-940.jpg (1/1) Miloch Aviation Photos 0 September 30th 17 03:10 PM
Any news from Chile Bob Gibbons[_2_] Soaring 3 March 2nd 10 05:08 PM
Soaring in Chile [email protected] Soaring 3 February 22nd 09 12:43 AM
The GP in Chile cernauta Soaring 0 January 7th 09 01:51 AM
Reich Weapons in Australia robert arndt Military Aviation 0 January 3rd 04 05:47 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.