RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:54:42 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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.

Yep, tt will start innocent just in a flatland then it will be implemented in the mountains then it will be raised again and again like with the finish height was, until we all thermal every 5 miles.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:13:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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.

Yes, and let's not forget to ban trans fats from contest dinners. They can really kill us. Oh, and let's not forget about the real killer, salt.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 7:34:51 PM UTC-5, Andrzej Kobus wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:13:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
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.

Yes, and let's not forget to ban trans fats from contest dinners. They can really kill us. Oh, and let's not forget about the real killer, salt.

Or crossing the street against the "don't walk" sign going to the pilot's meeting.
UH

That's alright, next they will require us to file flight plans

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 4:03:27 PM UTC-8, wrote:
SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.

This GPS stuff is a fad. I still use a map and compass.

I do have a handful of electronic gadgets. And I even know how to switch them on most of the time. And we have high unlandable plateaus back east. And I've flown a Nationals out of Minden and turned at Truckee and Air Sailing, among other sites.

You've missed a big point: namely, what will my arrival height be vis-a-vis the hard deck? Say the hard deck is at 6,000 MSL. The valley is roughly 5000' MSL, more or less. I'm in the middle of the SUA so I don't care how far away the edge is. I spot a field fire (you have those out west too, at least at Uvalde) about 3-4 miles away. I'm at, say, 6,800' MSL, 800' above the hard deck and about 1,800' above the valley floor. But my glide computer is not much help because unless I can point to a specific spot on the screen and do a GoTo or otherwise see for sure that the fire lies within the amoeba (which, of course, I've reconfigured to account not just for peaks and ridges but also for SUA floors, or maybe it's two amoebas, one for reachable landing spots and another one for reachable hard deck range), I don't know whether I'll bust the hard deck getting to the fire.

It's landable here so in a contest (or even a practice flight if I don't have another thermal), I'll go for the fire, estimating I'll still be 1,000' AGL or so when I get there. But its location is uncertain and, therefore, so is my arrival altitude, especially given a jolt of sink just before I hit 10 kts up in the smoke.

Idle thought: maybe we should allow adjusting the hard deck for total energy, so if you dive down below it but can still pull up over it, you're not penalized. Just a thought!

It's the same glide calculation I have to make now based on the terrain. But I can SEE about what my projected clearance is likely to be and shave it down or augment it based on what's available nearby in which to land. Yes, it takes some experience to do so. Yes, some less experienced pilots will play it conservatively and not run for the fire. That's fine; they're safe.. Others will plunge ahead without thinking and might have to land. It sounds harsh but the sensible pilots shouldn't be penalized by preventing them from exercising their experience and being rewarded for it because a few pilots don't exercise care. It's the other side of the coin of "don't penalize me because someone else stupidly flies over Lake Tahoe relying on ridge lift".

It's easier the thermal is marked by a gaggle and some gliders have FLARM because now they're depicted on my map display and I can project (with an extra step for the devices I use) what my arrival height should be.

Back East, there will a movement to convince the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to equip soaring birds with tiny FLARM devices so we can see them on our computer screens and judge whether those low altitude bird saves will incur a penalty.

I think the idea of a hard deck has merit. I'm worried that all of us, including me, are tossing it around without thinking through the real-world problems of implementation. I'm in the technology business. It's very seldom the technology that fails in a project; it's almost always the implementation thereof.

That's why this discussion is valuable. And that's why I think dismissing anyone who offers reasonably informed comments in good faith fashion is a mistake.

BTW, I assume your ability to overfly the Reno Class C (ceiling 8400 MSL per the latest SUA files) without a catastrophic penalty is permitted by a special waiver. SSA Rules for sanctioned contests explicitly prohibit overflying such "closed" airspace, even when transponder equipped.

Chip Bearden

The Reno Class C is a waiver, and has been that way for a long time - maybe a couple of decades? No one has thought it a problem. You don't cross it unless you are high enough, if low you do so at the peril of DSQ. (The limit in races is actually 10,000 ft, so well above the true legal limit). With the computer I use, I would not have a problem determining my glide over the SUA to where ever I am going. It is clearly shown on the flight profile. In fact most of the time the hard deck is well below the working band and is a non-issue.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 12:49:47 PM UTC-8, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
"You can't fix stupid".
In any competition, someone will always bend/stretch the rules.
Terra firms tends to weed out some over time in flying. At the detriment of others......

Condolences over the loss of Tomas.
It hurts us all, when any one pilot is lost to us. For any reason.

Secondly, +1 to this Charlie's observation.

I 'only' CM'ed about 18 Regionals in Region 12. Then took a little hiatus.
Then showed up to help be a towpilot (and crew) at the Tonopah Nationals. I also have seen the morph of rules, change of societal views from suck-it-up-buttercup to more nanny-state mentality. As a long-term CFI, I have seen the change from long-term involvement in soaring and progression through badges and skills, to the "what can I buy for $40k and go out with the guys?" Or, more blatantly, what can I buy to be at the top of the scoresheet. (My answer was - buy 40 years of experience or put 2500 hours in your logbook and make 7000 landings.)

Truly.... it takes a CD/CM event management with a set of huevos to 'level the field' somewhat. Over the years, I did several things that were not in the 'rules' and never had an issue with it. And later, I had a pilot make a request, and based on my Tonopah participation, agreed and put it into rules. 9.14. if you care to look it up.

A pilot landed out one day. Late, late retrieve. Morning rigging, missed the briefing, nasty heat day. Pilot launched and fell out. Crew struggles, we relaunch and he falls out again. He's entitled to another tow. I look him over,
he's irate, flushed, profane to his crew. I tell him he will go sit in the A.C. for 15 minutes. We will handle his glider. If he wants another tow at that time, he will get it - but he can't start his clock till he sits in the A.C. The cool off was worth it. He decided he was so far behind the day, he took the day off. Lived another ten years. Jack Lambie thanked me the week later.

A pilot mailed me his entry deposit (back when that was done). I called him and asked how much he had been flying at his home field that season (our event was in late August). He said he would come fly the practice weekend, but he hadn't been flying that summer yet. I said, sorry - I am mailing your check back to you. Didn't get a protest from him.

Had a contest pilot who leased his tug to me. Rules had morphed to a minimum finish height. We allowed high-speed low finishes out over the brush, away from buildings, and only if they had enough to climb and make normal closed traffic. Pilot had enough point-lead to win the contest with only a completion on the last day. In the AM he asked what the penalty would be for a low finish. 25 points. At ~5 pm, in the busy-ness of scoring, retrieve desk, paying tug pilots, etc. The CD storms in to ask if I knew what just happened at the gate. No? Another pilot stormed in, slapped down his recorder for download and asked if I knew what the so-and-so had done? No? The -25 point low finish had occurred - over the gate post & CD, over the parking ramp, over gliders pushing clear, over motorhomes -- and made most people run or fall to get lower from fear of being struck. The result in instant conference of CD and CM was - zero points for the day - unsportsmanlike and unsafe conduct. It was deliberate and considered - from the moment of penalty inquiry in the morning. The result was - NOT winning the event. OF drove out in a huff, but didn't protest the cape of 'pariah' slung onto him.

Later - Tonopah. I arrive about 2 pm Monday practice, mid-launch due to another towplane being disabled. I dump all my considerable freight, unfurl my rope on board and tow with the rest of the tug fleet. That evening, I get my 'briefing', which includes a short list of four contest numbers. If you pull in, in front of those - keep a sharp lookout! Why? They don't tow very well . . . and might do unconventional things. WTF???? If they're that bad, why aren't they sent home?
We don't have a rule that allows us to send them home.
And, we'd like to have their entrant money.
They won't win but they like to be at contests.
WTH???? So you would put ME at risk to launch them?
I was not pleased, nor impressed.

Following that contest, a Reg 12 pilot asked me how he could get an 'unsafe pilot' eliminated as an entrant. He wasn't going to fly contests anymore, if there wasn't a rule change or if this guy was there as an entrant. Hearing the exchange, looking at flight traces, knowing what I knew from being there, I took my request to the Contest Rules Committee. Bless their little hearts, they listened.
Paragraph 9.14 in National and Regional Rules now. So, if a CD or a CM has an issue with accepting any entrant, there is a channel for refusal. Not trivial, and hopefully above the level of any personal vendettas.

Do I think we can legislate 'good sense'? No.
Do I think it is valuable to openly discuss how to impact pilot choices during racing? Yes. Do I think it is right to consider how technology might interact with rules to reward more prudent choices? Yes. Do I think that gadgets can distract from rather than support situational awareness? Yes, many times.

But, the sport and racing will evolve.
Not always in the ways that I would wish. Navigation by pilotage is mostly a vanishing skill. Being "Reetered". Needing electronic tools to help calc on course what needs to happen to maximize your score, rather than flying an assigned task. The loss of the camaraderie of crew for everyone. Losses to me.

But, I am encouraged at the level of participation on this thread, and disappointed in only a few of the postings.
Know yourselves to be vulnerable humans.
Remember that glider racing will only earn you perhaps a moment's accolade. Violating your own margins ... can have lasting bad repercussions.

Fondly,
Cindy B

Cindy thank you so much for that post. I think its a wonderfull historical study of real life incidents and applications of rules or no rules or common sense decision making from the CM side of life. The perfect post to probably respectfully shut down this thread and start a new one regarding contest rules modification or join in on the hard deck thread.

I want to thank all of the participants on this thread, ones I agree with and also those that have very different viewpoints. It is good to chew over these issues with civility even on matters as emotionally charges as these topics. That is not always found on r.a.s. It goes to show the intellectual maturity of those posting to this particular thread.

No matter which general perspective you take on this topic: the need for more rules, or the needed change in pilot mindset superseding rules, the very fact that this issue of safety is on the minds of the participating posters means they probably are not going to be the subject of this dicussion in the near future God and common sense willing. You all are thinking safety, thinking consequences, and thinking personal boundaries. That, in my opinion, is where true safety needs to begin.
Dan

Interesting interview of Kawa about safety in Vitacura. It is sad to read that pilots were expecting something bad to happen during competition and still nothing could be done.

http://www.opensoaring.com/sebastian...8-in-vitacura/

On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 10:59:41 AM UTC-3, Paul Agnew wrote:
From Facebook:

Sad news from the last race day;
Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.

Hi to all,
I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who sadly died on last day of competition.

On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring back home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The new and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it possible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high mountain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the origins of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and filter pilot´s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task, no weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the accident...however it happened. Why?.

On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under analysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and "terrible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An 800 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival. Why it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably will never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.

We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the risk: rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots head, who finally manages all the factors.

On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot because minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC created a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new buffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why pushing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want more. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the pilots.

On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2 imposed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider maneuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the wing loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying competition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not 52.. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.

We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences, specially taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal accident happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will always be part of.

One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa´s flights but those in Chile. It is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with thousands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He flies in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the GP. None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how to fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better mentally and that is why he won.
Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but few days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we had together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.

Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the officials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.

Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.

Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes, glaciers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.

W dniu środa, 31 stycznia 2018 04:15:58 UTC+1 użytkownik napisał:
On Sunday, January 21, 2018 at 10:59:41 AM UTC-3, Paul Agnew wrote:
From Facebook:

Sad news from the last race day;
Local Chile pilot Tomas Reich had an accident on the ridges south of Santiago. The Chile SAR recovered Tomas and took him by helicopter to the hospital in Santiago. Unfortunately Tomas died during the evening from the injuries he sustained during the accident. Our thoughts and prayers are for his family and friends during this tragic time.

Hi to all,
I am one of the pilots that flew the GP in Chile and friend of Tomas, who sadly died on last day of competition.

On training day, there was an accident during a final glide ridge soaring back home (about 20 km) and at least +500 m above Vitacura as arrival. The new and very complex OGN antenna system we made for the mountains, made it possible to find him on time. Mountain ridge slope was not as very high mountain side, where we have never had an accident in 70 years (since the origins of our gliding activity in Chile). Probably we need to analyse and filter pilot´s personal accident record to start with. No rule, no task, no weather, no risk involved on that manouver explained the accident...however it happened. Why?.

On last competition day, we had a terrible fatal accident that is under analysis of course, but the terrain where it happened is not the high and "terrible mountains" as some pilots are trying to define for this country. An 800 meters airfield at 4 Km distance and +1100 meters altitude as arrival. Why it happened???. That is the question we need to answer but probably will never know. We can guess only and cry in the process.

We know racing has a risk. We need to be responsible in managing the risk: rules, tasks, safety devices, etc., but we will never be in the pilots head, who finally manages all the factors.

On Varesse GP Final there were big complains from a very well known pilot because minimum arrival altitude rule was too accurate without margin. IGC created a 5 m buffer. In Chile same pilot arrived 2 meters bellow the new buffer altitude (7 meters) and wanted to make a protest for 2 meters. Why pushing hard?. Pilots know they have those 5 meters in the pocket and want more. It is the same in all IGC rules...there is always a downside from the pilots.

On Varesse GP Final a pilot complained about wing load limit of 52 kg/m2 imposed for two reasons: to equal glider performance and to improve glider maneuverability. He wanted IGC to erase this "stupid rule" and to free the wing loading in order to make ASG 29 more competitive against JS1. Flying competition in mountains with 56 or 57 kg/m2 is even more dangerous!!!, not 52. Now in Chile he says this is the most dangerous competition?.

We have to be responsible with our declarations and the consequences, specially taking the opportunity to blame organizers just when a fatal accident happened. It is not fare for Tomas, and the gliding community he will always be part of.

One pilot here mentioned to check Kawa´s flights but those in Chile. It is not fare for us and it is an insult for all mountain pilots with thousands of hours and in any other mountain like Alps, Pyrenees, etc. He flies in Chile with the same risk than any other competition pilot during the GP. None of the other 18 pilots flew with more risk than him. He knows how to fly better the thermals, the final glide is better, he is just better mentally and that is why he won.
Kawa said in his book that flying in Chile was boring (back in 2010), but few days ago he told me that he wants to take that back after a flight we had together and found to be the most fun and exciting flight he had.

Now I am not only sad for our loss, but for the way our Country and the officials have been treated in a famous interview at opensoaring.

Chile is one of the best places for GP competitions.

Have a nice flights and hope you all can fly our beautiful Volcanoes, glaciers, lakes and multicolor mountains one day.

Base line at race 5 - std hight:
1. before start 2. rolling 20 km/h 3. landing 2-1 3-1 3-2
AR 680 681 681 1 1 0
EJ 684 686 683 2 -1 -3
QX 701 702 696 1 -5 -6
ZZ 686 685 681 -1 -5 -4
WG 673 675 676 2 3 1
Y 687 686 681 -1 -6 -5
YO 685 684 683 -1 -2 -1
AT 686 685 679 -1 -7 -6
I 685 685 683 0 -2 -2
GT 676 679 678 3 2 -1
P 689 691 685 2 -4 -6 in fact base line is 2m lower than WM but rules…
WM 686 687 683 1 -3 -4

So physically SK was higher than WM ...

Are there any examples confirming that a large wing loading causes more accidents? Is this just a theory?