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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Finish Gate Accident no. 2 | [email protected] | Soaring | 50 | April 2nd 05 06:58 AM |
Visulalizing the Finish Cylinder | [email protected] | Soaring | 44 | March 25th 05 02:10 PM |
Why does the Sporting code require "Goal" to be a finish point??? | Mark Zivley | Soaring | 31 | October 18th 04 10:31 PM |
Carbon Fiber - Achieving Glossy Finish w/o GelCoat | RKT | Home Built | 7 | March 8th 04 06:15 AM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |