RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

I do want to give a "shout out" to the CDs and Contest Managers I have had to pleasure to work with.

At every contest I've been at (6), safety was emphasized repeatedly. If there was a safety related issue, either in the air or on the ground, you could either 1) talk to the CD directly and / or 2) file an anonymous written complaint.

If a pilot is guilty of creating a hazardous situation, the CD has a number of options available to deal with the situation.

In one specific incident, the CD and one other person had already reviewed the flight traces before talking to the involved pilots.

I, for one, never want to have a CD seek me out to have a safety related discussion.

Lou

There are technological solutions for at least some infractions. With
Flarm=
, you can no longer claim "I didn't see him" in a thermal - the
glider
will=
appear on your tactical display as well as his flight path and
circling
di=
rection. Log files can automatically be examined to see who arrived
first
a=
nd who went the wrong way. There will be cases that are
judgement calls,
bu=
t most of them will be blatant. Second, low terrain clearance can
be
mostly=
solved with a hard floor. In the past difficult to comply with, but
with
m=
odern tactical computers very easy. We already have a hard
ceiling. There
a=
re pilots who hate the idea, these are usually the pilots that want
to win
=
with a low save that no one else believes was worth the risk. A
hard floor
=
is not detrimental at all to measuring soaring skill, though greatly
detrim=
ental to measuring risk tolerance.


You must be a "flatlander". What you propose may work in non-
mountainous areas, but the way the lift works in the bigger
mountains is that the rising air clings to the rock faces in very thin
sheets until it reaches a peak (or other physical trigger point) where
it breaks free to form a thermal column. So, anytime one is below
the peak, the reality is that one must fly very close to the terrain in
order to stay in that thin sheet of rising air until one climbs high
enough above said mountain to circle safely. Your "hard floor" would
be impossible to use at a mountainous site. All glider contests
would have to be held over flat terrain. Good luck with that one.

I got my first introduction to other pilot's WGC antics during
practice at Rieti in 1985. There was a pre-start gaggle of maybe
20-30 gliders circling left above the top of a mountain peak that
had a vertical sheer rock face that went maybe 300 meters from
the summit down. This was close enough to the airport so that
the location was within the "exclusively left hand turn" zone. I
joined the gaggle at the bottom (and turning left) with maybe
only 20 meters clearance over the peak. Then, in comes pilot
X about 5 meters below me, and lo and behold, he starts turning
RIGHT basically meeting me head-on. After one or two turns, I
left to find lift elsewhere because pilot X refused to turn left like
everyone else was doing. After the flight, I was livid and asked
my team captain to approach the captain of pilot X's team about
this unsafe flying. The answer I got back was that "pilot X thought
that there was enough space". No apologies, nothing. Worse yet
was that team X was staying in our hotel, and pilot X had previously
approached us during dinner to see what info he could gain info
about parts of the task area that he had not been to yet. I had
been friendly and had told him what I had seen. Pilot X had the
gall to come up to me after the flying incident wanting more info
and "help" from me. He didn't get it from me, but much to my
consternation, he did win a WGC in a subsequent year.... And so it
goes... Yes, there is some crazy (stupid) stuff that goes on at this
level. Tom Beltz had told me before I left that I needed to be
careful and watch out. Boy, was he ever right....

RO

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 1:15:07 PM UTC-8, Michael Opitz wrote:

You must be a "flatlander". What you propose may work in non-
mountainous areas, but the way the lift works in the bigger
mountains is that the rising air clings to the rock faces in very thin
sheets until it reaches a peak (or other physical trigger point) where
it breaks free to form a thermal column. So, anytime one is below
the peak, the reality is that one must fly very close to the terrain in
order to stay in that thin sheet of rising air until one climbs high
enough above said mountain to circle safely. Your "hard floor" would
be impossible to use at a mountainous site. All glider contests
would have to be held over flat terrain. Good luck with that one.

RO

I agree. There's been lots of discussion and analysis of how to deal with this. I see no practical way to enforce a "terrain proximity" limit at mountain sites where it's common for pilots to scrape little thermals off of steep slopes. The ridge at Logan, UT is the prototypical example. Mifflin and New Castle are examples, but not as extreme. It is theoretically possible to calculate altitude above some sort of "local valley arrival" altitude, but probably not in a way that would be reliably obvious to a pilot in the cockpit for decision-making purposes. What's worse than getting home only to realize when the scores come out that you got landed out 150 miles ago?

While flight into terrain out on course (stall/spin or while attempting an outlining) is the leading flight mode for accidents at contests I just don't see a practical penalty incentive system. The big incentive to digging out of a hole is to get home, even of all points are lost, and the decisions that get you into a hole are often 30-40 miles back on course so the effectiveness of a hard deck in prevention would likely be fairly limited, even if you could find a way to implement it.

BTW, Jon flies (quite well at the last R11) the Sierras so he's been to the mountains a lot.

Andy Blackburn
9B

For lack of perfection we don't fix the 99%?

It is true, a hard deck cannot stop pilots who are ridge soaring from crashing into the mountain. But this is a tiny fraction of contest crashes. The vast majority of contest crashes are botched outlandings, caused by attempts to keep racing at insanely low altitudes. Past ssa contest safety reports had traces from US contests with pilots initiating 360 degree turns at 150 feet.

We cannot stop pilots from doing this, but it is certainly easy enough to not give contest points for it, even in the mountains, and thus remove some of the contest temptation and necessity of such flying. One is simply "landed out" at about 500 feet AGL. That can be implemented with a set of SUA files giving minimum altitudes. The minimum altitude is approximately 500 feet in 500 foot steps, over the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out.. The SUA can stop short of the ridge in places where a ridge can be safely flown less than 500 feet above the valley floor. Our glide computers and scoring programs all easily handle forbidden airspace.

It's technically straightforward. Bring this up in any pilots meeting, and prepare to be hooted down as a "safety nazi" or other unpleasant accusations. I have had pilots screaming and swearing at me for this kind of suggestion. Somehow that if I give up the option of beating you by thermaling at 300 feet, I force you to give up the option of beating me by thermaling at 300 feet does not occur to many pilots. Or perhaps if any of us really recognized how prone to temptations we all are, especially with contests on the line, we wouldn't be flying contests in the first place! Much easier to mutter "well, I'd never do something that dumb" in the back of the funeral.

John Cochrane

Mountain flying is different, no floor system would work.
The terrain in Chile is not so easy, I am sure the tasking is also difficult to juggle all issues.
Regarding hazardous pilots, two of the most dangerous pilots I have flown against (at previous WGCs and two SGPs) were in Chile at that comp.
They have been talked to over and over. (Not involved in the accident)
Tom
....

On 1/23/2018 12:16 PM, Andy Blackburn wrote:

Snip...

In my experience, human behavior is a big consideration when looking at
safety issues in glider racing.

+1...it's elephant-in-the room YUGE!!!

Some insightful stuff snipped...

I hear a lot that each pilot-in-command is responsible for their own fate
(that's tautologically true) and that we should let pilots set their own
safety limits with unsafe flying penalties only for obviously unsafe or
illegal acts of piloting. I just think we are kidding ourselves when we
attempt to assert that how we set the game up doesn't (or can't) materially
influence the degree of carnage we witness at the end of the day.

Spot on. By way of example, I'd be hard pressed to imagine a form of soaring
competition *better* designed to encourage pilots to thin their margins in
mountainous terrain than SGP racing. That's not intended to rain on SGP's
parade in any way, but "merely" to be a personal observation based on my
assessment of the meld of human nature, SGP scoring methodology and the nature
of "energy-/speed-based" sailplane competition...a "nature of the beast" sort
of observation, if you will.

There are also factors related to tasking, which are difficult to deal with
explicitly in the way we set up the rules, penalties and scoring (weak
weather, long hours in the cockpit over multiple days, difficult terrain,
thunderstorms, etc.). Here too behavioral considerations factor in
(needing/wanting to get in a contest day, pressure from pilots, etc.). We
can try to deal with this via exhortations for responsible individual
behavior, but maybe there is more to think about.
IMHO there IS (a lot!) more to think about. Without intending to drift off
into soaring's "philosophical cosmos," it's clear to me competition soaring
has evolved away from the basics it once sought to measure/demonstrate, i.e.
staying up, height for height's sake, going great distances, etc., to
something beyond "course-based speed measurement" of a pilot's soaring skills.
Throughout that competitive evolution - as with many (every?) enthusiast based
competitive exercises - it's always had an element of proselytizing about it.
Enthusiasts of anything are always eager to show potential would-be
enthusiasts what they may be missing by not participating in the underlying
activity. Soaring has never been unique on this front, though the apparent
reality of its growth worldwide being at best stagnant, arguably adds urgency
to soaring's proselytizing efforts. Has SGP gone "too far?"

SGP can viewed as an attempt to commercialize sailplane racing by ginning up
some flavor of competition potentially attractive to the masses (and
sponsors). When I try to imagine "mass attraction" succeeding beyond SGP
originator's wildest hopes, it's not clear to me where on the spectrum from
"bad" to "aweseomely good!" such an eventuality would be. (Most likely, it
would depend upon one's perspective.) I happen to believe an expansion of
potential soaring avenues - "expansion-driven balkanization" you might say -
would in general be "sportively healthy." Choice is good in my view, e.g. the
marketplace presently supports engineless and increasing flavors of engined
sailplanes, different avenues of competition continue to evolve, clubs and
commercial soaring FBOs co-exist (often on the same airport), etc.

My guess is as things presently are, the sport as a whole will be unlikely to
continue to be able to support "SGP-like" racing as a viable activity except
as a small, specialty event. Assuming SGP continues for the foreseeable
future, and given human nature, I can't see any way to substantively change
the human-nature-based incentives and risks inherent to it short of avoiding
mountain venues. In any event, I don't see potential sponsors lining up to
throw money at *any* "potential death sport" in today's society (think auto
racing), and even were that no factor, soaring's lengthy learning curve is its
own exclusionary reality. I guess where this sort of speculation leads me to
is the thought: let's enjoy SGP while we can; treasure the company of your
fellow soaring pilots for as long as you and they are here; and strive
mightily to avoid zero-margin situations. And - sigh - be prepared for the worst.

Bob - mostly Rocky Mountain hours - W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 4:58:53 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The minimum altitude is approximately 500 feet in 500 foot steps, over the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out. The SUA can stop short of the ridge in places where a ridge can be safely flown less than 500 feet above the valley floor. Our glide computers and scoring programs all easily handle forbidden airspace.

It's technically straightforward.

I dunno. I tried to do this - literally - with a topo map of the Logan task area back a few years ago. There is enough rolling terrain, "local" (and sometimes totally unlandable) valleys, escarpments and some long, long glides out to slowly descending valleys that it became quite complicated to figure out. I fly plenty of places where the landouts are "35 miles that-a-way" and where the landable fields might be several hundred feet higher than the valley floors which are riverbeds or washes or canyons. Sure, you could smooth it all out by going higher, but now your technical landout is much higher above the field your circling over.

My broader observation is a more fundamental one of behavior. The decisions pilots make that get them low are typically made tens of miles back on course, so the fine distinction of getting landed out 150' higher than they would commit to land anyway would do little to prevent them getting into the hole in the first place. Moreover, once low and stuck the motive pretty quickly shifts from points to getting home. The incremental points incentive to circle at 300' is small compared to the overall convenience incentive to avoid a ground retrieve. I suppose any reduction in incentive to circle low can be viewed as good, but it's not without a cost of complexity, so one might legitimately weigh one against the other.

Andy Blackburn
9B

On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 5:58:21 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
On Tuesday, January 23, 2018 at 4:58:53 PM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The minimum altitude is approximately 500 feet in 500 foot steps, over the valley floor. Mountains and ridges stick out. The SUA can stop short of the ridge in places where a ridge can be safely flown less than 500 feet above the valley floor. Our glide computers and scoring programs all easily handle forbidden airspace.

It's technically straightforward.

I dunno. I tried to do this - literally - with a topo map of the Logan task area back a few years ago. There is enough rolling terrain, "local" (and sometimes totally unlandable) valleys, escarpments and some long, long glides out to slowly descending valleys that it became quite complicated to figure out. I fly plenty of places where the landouts are "35 miles that-a-way" and where the landable fields might be several hundred feet higher than the valley floors which are riverbeds or washes or canyons. Sure, you could smooth it all out by going higher, but now your technical landout is much higher above the field your circling over.

My broader observation is a more fundamental one of behavior. The decisions pilots make that get them low are typically made tens of miles back on course, so the fine distinction of getting landed out 150' higher than they would commit to land anyway would do little to prevent them getting into the hole in the first place. Moreover, once low and stuck the motive pretty quickly shifts from points to getting home. The incremental points incentive to circle at 300' is small compared to the overall convenience incentive to avoid a ground retrieve. I suppose any reduction in incentive to circle low can be viewed as good, but it's not without a cost of complexity, so one might legitimately weigh one against the other.

Andy Blackburn
9B

I fly almost exclusively in mountain areas. As John said, keeping people from flying into a ridge may be difficult, but keeping them from generally flying low in unlandable terrain seems quite technically possible, at least where I fly. A very good contest can be held always within safe gliding range of a landable airport and the contour map required rather rudimentary. Certainly there are ridges and mountains sticking through that a pilot must miss, but the temptation to get low in unlandable would be removed.

The fact is we already fly with a hard deck - the earth. The penalty for violating it is injury or death. Contests sometimes reward your tolerance for reducing safety margins to less than needed, as accident reports prove. Raising that hard deck to a virtual one does no harm to competition and eliminates risk taking as a means to the podium.

I think we can all agree that "racing" of any ilk (cars, motorcycles, airplanes, gliders) is inherently riskier than recreational use of these vehicles. Racing implies that limits will be pushed, risks will be taken, consequences will be underestimated and judgment might be suspended for a risk/reward scenario where an advantage might be gained or a poor position might be improved by momentarily taking a dangerous chance with a better than even chance at a successful outcome.

The penalties for making a bad call are extreme in the gliding world, especially when racing low and fast close to a ridge, taking advantage of the prevailing upslope lift found in (as Andy Blackburn accurately described) "thin sheets" close to the ridge. At SGP speeds (or Appalachian ridge, or Alps or other places), running close to the terrain is flat out risky. Add in complicated topography and designated turnpoints with some other competitor only a hundred meters ahead (but 25 meters higher) and it might become a fatal error to go for it as opposed to thinking out your OWN flight plan rather than sticking with another competitor just to not lose him.

George Moffatt famously said, "There is no variometer like another sailplane." Very true, but Terra Firma cannot be ignored. If the guy ahead of you has calculated that he will clear a ridge with 20 meters, you are in a pretty bad place if you happen to be 25 meters lower.

I don't compete in sailplanes, but I have raced cars, motorcycles and everything else I could get my testosterone filled head inside, at least until I discovered that desire alone does not make up for judgment and lack of talent. And the "psych-out games" some competitors bring to almost any racing sport are not my cup of tea (or beer or whatever).

I think I got this revelation back in 1979 at a hang gliding competition in the Owens Valley (1979 Owens X-C Classic), when one of the more pompous, bombastic and generally annoying competitors loudly proclaimed to all and sundry at the Pilots Meeting, "You can try to WIN this contest, or you can try to stay alive!"

I was happy to be a back marker, while the talented (and the fools) disappeared into the distance.

There are three scenarios I know of that are important in mountain flying accidents.

1. Controlled flight into terrain. Trying to squeak through a pass or over a ridgeline, or hooking a tree with a wingtip.

2. Loss of control without margin to recover (Henry Coomb's "Sinister Trap", see Soaring 9/84).

3. Failure to maintain margin to a landable field.

When the glider ends up on the mountain, it's scenario #1 or 2. In the valley, #3. Is one scenario more "important" than the others? Not really, we've lost friends to all three.

A hard deck designed to address #1 &/or #2 will be objectionable to guys that routinely fly within a wingspan or two of mountains. A hard deck can't really address #3 in an effective way.

Evan Ludeman / T8