Logan contest reporting now only on Soaring Cafe

On 8/6/2011 10:41 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
On Jul 23, 11:58 pm, Mike the StrikeStringm...@msn. We're not taking
pictures of easily identifiable turnpoints with Kodak cameras
anymore!! Maybe our accident ratio of 2 out of 60, would be much much
lower if people had these suitable fields marked on their GPS.

I think it would be nightmare for contest management to provide a list
of "suitable fields" over which they have no control, that are not
controlled by any authority, and are privately owned.

Even setting aside the legal issues, what criteria should be used for a
suitable field? The range of ability and ships means some fields will
not be suitable for everyone. Who determines the field is still suitable
each day of the contest? A field can fine one day and full of cattle the
next, a fence is installed, sprinklers moved, hay bales moved in for
storage, and so on.

Pilots can and should be warned of local hazards, and they are already
made of aware of places like dry lakes that are known quantities that
won't change, but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
or even during the day.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/6/2011 11:41 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:

All, what are we doing in this sport to prevent this from happening
again? It really makes me sick to my stomach to see contestants
demolish their gliders only to have it hushed up by contest
management.

"Indeed!" as to your question. As Tom Knauff has bluntly pointed out on this
group a number of times - and a point with which I generally agree ==IF==
the 'finger of blame' pointed at pilots choosing, as Tom has put it, not to
'upgrade their proficiency' ALSO includes their underlying attitudes (which
need to be examined by pilots, and, adjusted or acted upon as sober reflection
concludes) - the vast majority of sailplane accidents are not 'surprises'
thrown at pilots by the Fickle Finger of Fate, but weaker and weaker links of
chains that eventually break. To conclude pilots - skills and attitudes - are
not an active part of the chain is 'comfortingly delusional' ('comfortingly'
so until the 'inevitable' accident, that is).

And, "I agree completely," with the 'hushed up' sentiment, though I don't
limit my dissatisfaction to only contest management. Writing as a person who
(decades ago) had an accident that ended up in "Soaring" magazine (very
inaccurately, due in part to my youthful diffidence/reluctance to contribute
my own narrative of a still-painful-in-mind situation), I contributed that
time to the silence. Effectively, as a non-contributor, I 'hushed up' an
accident I know would have been of intense interest to a number of fellow SSA
members. Shame on me.

Using Logan as today's current example, Serious Kudos go to Andy Blackburn for
sharing sufficient of the circumstances of his, glider-breaking, off-field
groundloop on RAS, for any mildly savvy (even wannabe) XC pilot to sensibly
conclude how his decision(s) led to a busted glider.

For those who happened to miss his post, I took away that he'd left himself a
the off-field choice of landing in a tallish barley field. Definitely a
smooth, reasonably level surface, but also definitely one with 'known glider
busting' obstacles, i.e. 'the tallish crop.' FWIW, I concluded decades ago
that landing in ANY field that had a high probability of snagging a wingtip
with 'something' (e.g. barley, weeds, grass, etc.) was rolling the dice
insofar as being able to fly the same T-tailed, glass glider tomorrow. (Anyone
interested in learning more about *why* I concluded that, feel free to start
another thread...)

Silence is definitely not golden, when it comes to learning from others'
sailplane mistakes.

We need to hear about the accidents in order to
learn a lesson!! I personally know two pilots who quit flying in
contests when they watched a glider cartwheel end over end landing in
an unlandable field. Yet, the contest report for that day said
nothing regarding the accident and just showed a W, F for Withdrew
from contest and Flight log.

Not to belabor the point, but imagine yourself in the position of 'contest
management'. How and when would you go about 'learning the details' of such a
crunch? (And let's not even consider the U.S.-centric phobia of being sued...)
Whose responsibility is it...not only the creating of the crunch, but the
disseminating of first-hand information (always the best, if it's available)?
Using your example, if no first-hand information was 'reasonably obtainable,'
who was in the better position to begin disseminating second-hand information,
the two eyewitnesses or contest management? Sure the latter had a handy
'pulpit,' but in today's world, the former are far from bereft of their own
pulpits. The point I'm hoping to emphasize is that SOMEone needs to step up,
bite the bullet, and 'be brave' about trying to disseminate 'possibly
actionable data' about accidents to the interested folks in the soaring
community. We know the NTSB is neither interested, staffed, nor capable of
doing it, 'contest management' has some obvious obstacles, so I conclude it's
really up to the soaring community at large. That might just mean you or me,
depending on circumstances. (Arm twisting by 'you or me' of pilots who've
broken their gliders is permitted, of course...)

The GOOD news is that - IMHO - the vast majority of soaring accidents (80+%?)
are repetitive 'poor judgment based'. Obviously, that's not good for the
parties involved, but it's 'good' to the rest of us who are interested in NOT
making similar mistakes, if we're honest with ourselves about 'a likely chain
of events' that might have led up to 'the bad judgment.' For example, how many
readers are as ready to land their T-tailed glass glider in a field with
'tallish growth' now as before reading this post? Why? (Again, this might be a
topic worth batting about under another thread, because - I will argue - XC
pilots who ARE 'comfortable/OK-with' doing so are also significantly more
likely to one day break their own glider than those who are not. In any event,
it's a pilot's *choice* to use those sort of fields, not an inevitability.)

It's the relatively smaller percentage of non 'stupid-pilot trick' accidents
that remain of intense personal interest, simply because, with today's
knowledge, in those are the accident categories I consider myself most likely
to futurely participate. However, somewhere and somewhen along the line, I had
to *learn* this conclusion. I did it only by scouring "Soaring," aviation
magazines, and the NTSB reports (and, in online days, their database). Hence
the very real value of pilots sharing their mistakes...through whatever venue
available to them. I thank them all, alive or not.


If someone says a task was called over 80 miles of unlandable terrain,
yet another pilot claims there's always a suitable field within 8
miles of the course line, then why aren't these suitable fields being
entered into the turnpoint database? Situational awareness would
greatly improve if you got low and could see the distance, direction
and altituded needed to find this suitable field.

"What Eric Greenwell said." Whose responsibility is it to 'properly assess'
fields over which contest (really, any) sailplane pilots are flying? (Correct
answer: Joe Pilot.)

To conjure up an extreme example hoping to better illustrate 'where I'm coming
from' on this, imagine me as CD calling tasks over completely unlandable
terrain at some contest (whether unbroken forests, virgin Arizona desert,
whatever...). Sure, I'd be advertising myself as (choose what applies: an
idiot, a jerk, a power-mad autocrat, an ***hole, etc., etc. etc.), but: 1) I
can't *force* competing pilots to go out on course; 2) any pilot could
individually 'vote with his feet' and choose to not participate; 3) pilots
could band together and do the same/tar-and-feather me/demand their money back
from the organizers/etc.; 4) (here, be imaginative!). Years ago, I remember
seeing in "Soaring" magazine a statement attributed to CD Karl Striedieck to
the effect: I should be able to call a task anywhere in the (eastern, in this
case) contest area and expect you folks to be able to safely fly it,
regardless of weather. Reportedly, this was by way of cutting off at the knees
'pilot whining' at his task calling. True or not, and ignoring the 'fairness'
of a contest called with that philosophy in mind, I agreed than and now with
the reported philosophy.


Looking at the turnpoint database for Logan, it shows lots of mountain
peaks for turnpoints. Nobody needs glide navigation into mountain
peaks. Pilots need glide navigation into suitable fields. How about
using actual suitable landing areas for turnpoints? We're not taking
pictures of easily identifiable turnpoints with Kodak cameras
anymore!! Maybe our accident ratio of 2 out of 60, would be much much
lower if people had these suitable fields marked on their GPS.

I love this sport and hate to hear of accidents happening.

We're in 100% agreement on that last sentence!!!


Respectfully,
Bob - mindset matters! - W.

On Jul 25, 11:45*pm, Tim Taylor wrote:
Posts to the SSA contest page are permanent parts of contest
reporting. *The Logan contest management expected that material posted
to the official webpage would be factual. *While blogs may embellish
or exaggerate to make the material more interesting, it is important
to provide true statements on the official website that do not mislead
readers. *Unfortunately the posts to the website had misleading
statements that were beyond mild exaggeration. *The statement that led
to the removal of the posts was from the Day Three report (July 22,
2011):

“As it turned out, a huge cloud street set up well to our north over
Sherman Peak running horizon to horizon east-northeast to west-
southwest that ran right through the 15m task area. *”All” we had to
do was get to Sherman Peak, connect with the street, run it for 80
miles out over completely unlandable (and uninhabited) terrain, turn
around and get home, and all but one 15m pilot was able to do this in
some fashion or another.”

While the statement makes for sensational reading and from the
comments on RAS many believed it; unfortunately it was misleading and
was well beyond exaggeration for effect. *After reviewing Frank’s
flight for that day (July 21st), it is evident that he was never more
than eight miles from landable fields and this was at flight altitudes
of 4500 to 9000 feet agl. *You can download his KML file from the OLC
and review it in Google Earth. Please notice both the many
communities, farms, airports and landable fields he and the rest of
the competitors flew over. *You can review my July 3rd flight where I
landed in the flight zone of the July 21st contest flight to see that
many of the fields that are not green are also landable. *Almost every
valley in the flight area is filled with landable fields. *In general,
most of the tasking area in Logan has many airports and landable
fields in all quadrants. *It is one of the safest mountain sites that
I have ever flown at and I have received similar comments from top
pilots that have flown at Logan. *It is somewhat intimidating to the
new pilots that are not familiar with mountain flying, but those that
embrace it come away excited about the possibilities and find they
approach their flying in a different way after the experience. *I
encourage the readers here to do their due diligence and review flight
logs and tasks in Google Earth before believing everything they read
in blogs and RAS.

The Logan contest management felt that while it was perfectly fine for
Frank or any other blogger to write their opinions, they should not be
posted as part of the official website. *There were also many other
bloggers at the contest and this leads to the question of how best to
provide easy access to all bloggers without officially endorsing
them. *The best solution was to remove the posts and provide links to
Frank’s and others’ blogs as part of the official daily report.
Readers can easily link to the blogs and it provides a clear
separation from the official report.

Tim Taylor

Tim ,
I am amused and amazed by your response . While doing my " Due
diligence " it got me wondering how often Google earth is updated ( IE
to show things like crop height , damage from an excessive winter
snowfall , single wire powerlines , etc ) . Second , I welcome your
opinion but please don't express it as fact . Ive flown nothing but
mountain sites in my gliding career and there is nothing safe about
some of the dubious terrain pilots had to fly over to complete tasks
in Logan . Nothing safe about packing close to 60 gliders and 5
towplanes at the same altitudes along a mile and a half stretch of
ridge either . For the contest management to sterilize the news from
Logan was probably not the best course of action . In many of the
attendees opinions the criticism was justified and it should have been
dealt with and put behind us .
Here is another way to look at it ; A contest can be run in such a
manner that it encourages participation and stresses safety or it can
be run in such a manner that only a small handfull of participants
finish tasks and want to come back . http://soaringcafe.com/2011/08/thoug...15m-nationals/
A sad day for Utah soaring . I hope that if there is another
contest at Logan next year things will go better . I am a big fan of
soaring in Northern Utah and Ill do anything I can to help .
r4

On Jul 25, 11:45*pm, Tim Taylor wrote:
Posts to the SSA contest page are permanent parts of contest
reporting. *The Logan contest management expected that material posted
to the official webpage would be factual. *While blogs may embellish
or exaggerate to make the material more interesting, it is important
to provide true statements on the official website that do not mislead
readers. *Unfortunately the posts to the website had misleading
statements that were beyond mild exaggeration. *The statement that led
to the removal of the posts was from the Day Three report (July 22,
2011):

“As it turned out, a huge cloud street set up well to our north over
Sherman Peak running horizon to horizon east-northeast to west-
southwest that ran right through the 15m task area. *”All” we had to
do was get to Sherman Peak, connect with the street, run it for 80
miles out over completely unlandable (and uninhabited) terrain, turn
around and get home, and all but one 15m pilot was able to do this in
some fashion or another.”

While the statement makes for sensational reading and from the
comments on RAS many believed it; unfortunately it was misleading and
was well beyond exaggeration for effect. *After reviewing Frank’s
flight for that day (July 21st), it is evident that he was never more
than eight miles from landable fields and this was at flight altitudes
of 4500 to 9000 feet agl. *You can download his KML file from the OLC
and review it in Google Earth. Please notice both the many
communities, farms, airports and landable fields he and the rest of
the competitors flew over. *You can review my July 3rd flight where I
landed in the flight zone of the July 21st contest flight to see that
many of the fields that are not green are also landable. *Almost every
valley in the flight area is filled with landable fields. *In general,
most of the tasking area in Logan has many airports and landable
fields in all quadrants. *It is one of the safest mountain sites that
I have ever flown at and I have received similar comments from top
pilots that have flown at Logan. *It is somewhat intimidating to the
new pilots that are not familiar with mountain flying, but those that
embrace it come away excited about the possibilities and find they
approach their flying in a different way after the experience. *I
encourage the readers here to do their due diligence and review flight
logs and tasks in Google Earth before believing everything they read
in blogs and RAS.

The Logan contest management felt that while it was perfectly fine for
Frank or any other blogger to write their opinions, they should not be
posted as part of the official website. *There were also many other
bloggers at the contest and this leads to the question of how best to
provide easy access to all bloggers without officially endorsing
them. *The best solution was to remove the posts and provide links to
Frank’s and others’ blogs as part of the official daily report.
Readers can easily link to the blogs and it provides a clear
separation from the official report.

Tim Taylor

Tim ,
While attempting some "Due Diligence " I began to wonder how often
Google Earth is updated . For example how can one determine crop
height from Google . Further , are the effects of a 600% snow pack
reflected ? I was surprised by the amount of water in the valley this
year . Can you make out livestock or single wire powerlines from
Google ?
Ive flown nothing but mountain sites my entire gliding career and
given the conditions , there was nothing safe about the tasks assigned
over unsafe terrain at your " Safest mountain site " or cramming
nearly 60 gliders and 5 towplanes on the same mile and a half stretch
of ridge at the same altitude .
The biggest mistake was for the contest management to ignore
criticisms from competitors and respond by attempting to sanitize the
contest reporting . This was probably not the best course of action .
Call me an optimist ( Or whatever you'd like to call me ) , but I
think a contest at Logan can be run in such a manner as to not scare
pilots away . I don't think this was quite the case in 2011 . Lets
hope that lessons have been learned and if there is a contest in 12 we
can put this all behind .
r4
http://soaringcafe.com/2011/08/thoug...15m-nationals/

On 8/8/2011 11:47 AM, Buba Smith wrote:

Tim ,
While attempting some "Due Diligence " I began to wonder how often
Google Earth is updated . For example how can one determine crop
height from Google . Further , are the effects of a 600% snow pack
reflected ? I was surprised by the amount of water in the valley this
year . Can you make out livestock or single wire powerlines from
Google ?

My observation is Google images can be over more than 5 years old, so
making serious decisions based on easily changed attributes (crops,
fences, livestock, sprinklers, power lines, etc) is too risky. I do use
it to measure widths and lengths when I see a runway that isn't on the
charts, just to back up my estimate from the air. The assumption is a
runway that I see every few months is not likely to change; of course,
they do sometimes disappear, or another one somewhere else appears, so I
do not count on them like I do municipal airports.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)

On Aug 8, 11:47*am, Buba Smith wrote:

there was nothing safe about the tasks assigned
over unsafe terrain at your " Safest mountain site " or cramming
nearly 60 gliders and 5 towplanes on the same mile and a half stretch
of ridge at the same altitude .

"Buba" -

You are ignoring the facts (again). Launches were staggered and
contest classes were given different start-cylinder radii (up to 10
miles!!) so that they could spread out and avoid each other. 60
gliders were NOT forced into the same "half-mile" stretch of ridge at
all. During launches there were multiple gaggles up and down the
ridge from Smithfield Canyon to Logan Canyon, on the ridge and out in
front of it. And as people got above the ridge they spread out even
more. Every time I hit 9000' I dove for the ridge and ran from just
south of Sugar Creek to Naomi while waiting for the gate to open, and
that got me well away from the gaggles. Anyone could have done this
same thing if they wanted to (and several did).

As far as "unsafe" terrain... You claim to be a mountain-flyer.
ANYONE who has flown in the mountains has flown over lots of
unlandable terrain. Its called "the mountains" (themselves)! UNSAFE
terrain is a totally different animal. What makes terrain unsafe is
not just the slope, or the rocks, or the vegetation. The pilot's
attitude, planning, and judgement skills are critical components. The
CD and task-setters do NOT force the pilot to fly over specific
terrain. It is up to the pilots to choose their route. _Legally_,
pilots are responsible for the safety of their own flight (FAR 91.3).
Picking a route on a contest task is about more than just finding the
"green air". Terrain & safety should factor into the decision-making
process. During the Regionals, I personally was never more than 10
miles from a landable field, and when I was that far away from one I
was usually quite high - or I was working reliable lift (or both).
And lest anyone think that my choices somehow compromised my
competitiveness: I finished 4th overall out of 16 entrants in my
class, and were it not for a low finish one day I would have taken
2nd. I don't want to point at myself too much as an example of good
judgement (I make my fair share of bad decisions and goofs) - but I
want to illustrate that you can be fast *and* still be reasonably
safe.

Look, I'm a 300-hour glider pilot with less than 5 full seasons under
my belt. Logan 2011 was my 5th SSA contest ever. If the place was
that bad/scary/dangerous, how come I had no serious problems and was
able to make it around the (Regionals) task every day except for the
first (when massive thunderstorms downed almost the entire fleet)? I
wasn't just lucky: I got low in places, and on the first day I landed
out... Yet I didn't break my glider and I was never in danger of
putting it down in a nasty area because I planned ahead while I was
still high enough to take action. That's just part of mountain-
flying!

I HATE the fact that a group of 4 or 5 guys have taken it upon
themselves to tar and feather the Logan site, the contest management,
and (specifically) Tim. These are good people, good pilots, and they
had good intentions. There was no malicious action or devious
plotting. They freely shared their local information and repeatedly
warned pilots about trouble areas or ways to cross difficult terrain.
What more could they have done? They can't fly the damn glider for
someone else, or force them to make good decisions! Case in point:
One of the broken gliders flew 6+ miles into rising terrain while
losing altitude. The glider came to rest on a rocky slope near 6400'
elevation. If you look at Google Maps (via the OLC trace - its
online) you can see a highway running through a low slot (5500') that
the pilot could have used to turn back North and escape to lower
terrain (5000'). In fact, for those last 6 miles the contestant was
flying parallel the "escape route", just 1 mile to the east of it. I
am not saying any of this to be harsh on the pilot; I'm making the
point that this broken glider has NOTHING to do with the task that was
called or the contest staff, or even the site! When someone drives a
boat into a dock do we blame the dock? When a car runs off the road
and hits a house, to we blame the house or the bend in the road?

Lest you all think I'm being a Pollyanna, I will say that there are
some things about the contest I that I think could have been improved:
The tasks were based upon weather calls that were not always correct.
In defense of the contest staff we're also talking about a week in
which MOST of the USA was experiencing bizarre weather - including 119
degrees in Minnesota! When I was in Logan in 2010, weather was much
stronger and the tasks that were called would have been no problem if
the weather was just a touch better most days. Still, some different
weather forecast assumptions and a later grid-time would have been
appreciated, once we all caught on to the weather patterns that were
prevalent during the first week. I understand the reluctance to move
the grid-time later; conventional wisdom says its worse to miss an
early day or a chance for a big task - and before the contest people
were having success launching early... But at the same time there was
a cumulative toll being taken on pilots & crews (and staff) sitting
out in the sun day after day. I also agree that some (not all) of the
backup tasks were not well-thought-out. Sometimes reducing the
minimum time and using large turn radii can work; but not always. And
I think that in the future ANY contest staff should think hard about
trying to put on a Regionals & a Nats at the same time. I flew the
Regionals and would have hated not being able to compete; but I also
think that there were many people who showed up for the Regionals
simply because a Nationals was being held and they wanted to fly at
the same site. Some of them were not prepared for hard racing or for
mountain-flying, and the wide spread in performance and skill between
the top and bottom of the 60 entrants made life harder for the Staff
and some of the contestants. I think the staff did the best job that
they could, but I also think that a single contest would have allowed
more focus and reduced some of the complaints and problems (Note that
I don't think it would have prevented any of the broken aircraft or
altered the weather problems). And again - the passing of Charlie
"Lite" did not help matters. Whether or not you personally like the
contest staff members, you have to give them credit for working hard
to still put on a contest just a handful weeks after his passing.

And for the last time: This was not a Safari, Encampment, Fun-Fly, or
XC-camp. It was a _contest_. Primarily, it was a NATIONAL
CHAMPIONSHIP. Its *supposed* to be tough and challenging and require
good judgement and tough decisions and calculated risks. It was not
billed as a contest for beginners. It was not intended to be a place
where people come to fly their first contest. Some people have
complained about Logan in the context of getting "Joe Glider Pilot" to
come fly contests... But "Joe" was not the target audience! If you
want to get "Joe" out, do what we do in WA: Hold a mock-contest over a
3-day weekend, with mentors and seminars and short simple tasks in a
place with strong lift and non-threatening terrain. Don't dumb-down
National Championships or restrict which sites are considered for
major events, based on the misguided assumption that somehow you'll
increase participation by doing so.

And to anyone who's actually read this Novella all the way through:
Thanks! :-)

--Noel

On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 10:38:28 -0700, noel.wade wrote:

On Aug 8, 11:47Â*am, Buba Smith wrote:

there was nothing safe about the tasks assigned over unsafe terrain at
your " Safest mountain site " or cramming nearly 60 gliders and 5
towplanes on the same mile and a half stretch of ridge at the same
altitude .

"Buba" -

You are ignoring the facts (again). Launches were staggered and contest
classes were given different start-cylinder radii (up to 10 miles!!) so
that they could spread out and avoid each other. 60 gliders were NOT
forced into the same "half-mile" stretch of ridge at all. During
launches there were multiple gaggles up and down the ridge from
Smithfield Canyon to Logan Canyon, on the ridge and out in front of it.
And as people got above the ridge they spread out even more. Every time
I hit 9000' I dove for the ridge and ran from just south of Sugar Creek
to Naomi while waiting for the gate to open, and that got me well away
from the gaggles. Anyone could have done this same thing if they wanted
to (and several did).

As far as "unsafe" terrain... You claim to be a mountain-flyer. ANYONE
who has flown in the mountains has flown over lots of unlandable
terrain. Its called "the mountains" (themselves)! UNSAFE terrain is a
totally different animal. What makes terrain unsafe is not just the
slope, or the rocks, or the vegetation. The pilot's attitude, planning,
and judgement skills are critical components. The CD and task-setters
do NOT force the pilot to fly over specific terrain. It is up to the
pilots to choose their route. _Legally_, pilots are responsible for the
safety of their own flight (FAR 91.3). Picking a route on a contest task
is about more than just finding the "green air". Terrain & safety
should factor into the decision-making process. During the Regionals, I
personally was never more than 10 miles from a landable field, and when
I was that far away from one I was usually quite high - or I was working
reliable lift (or both). And lest anyone think that my choices somehow
compromised my competitiveness: I finished 4th overall out of 16
entrants in my class, and were it not for a low finish one day I would
have taken 2nd. I don't want to point at myself too much as an example
of good judgement (I make my fair share of bad decisions and goofs) -
but I want to illustrate that you can be fast *and* still be reasonably
safe.

Look, I'm a 300-hour glider pilot with less than 5 full seasons under my
belt. Logan 2011 was my 5th SSA contest ever. If the place was that
bad/scary/dangerous, how come I had no serious problems and was able to
make it around the (Regionals) task every day except for the first (when
massive thunderstorms downed almost the entire fleet)? I wasn't just
lucky: I got low in places, and on the first day I landed out... Yet I
didn't break my glider and I was never in danger of putting it down in a
nasty area because I planned ahead while I was still high enough to take
action. That's just part of mountain- flying!

I HATE the fact that a group of 4 or 5 guys have taken it upon
themselves to tar and feather the Logan site, the contest management,
and (specifically) Tim. These are good people, good pilots, and they
had good intentions. There was no malicious action or devious plotting.
They freely shared their local information and repeatedly warned pilots
about trouble areas or ways to cross difficult terrain. What more could
they have done? They can't fly the damn glider for someone else, or
force them to make good decisions! Case in point: One of the broken
gliders flew 6+ miles into rising terrain while losing altitude. The
glider came to rest on a rocky slope near 6400' elevation. If you look
at Google Maps (via the OLC trace - its online) you can see a highway
running through a low slot (5500') that the pilot could have used to
turn back North and escape to lower terrain (5000'). In fact, for those
last 6 miles the contestant was flying parallel the "escape route", just
1 mile to the east of it. I am not saying any of this to be harsh on
the pilot; I'm making the point that this broken glider has NOTHING to
do with the task that was called or the contest staff, or even the site!
When someone drives a boat into a dock do we blame the dock? When a
car runs off the road and hits a house, to we blame the house or the
bend in the road?

Lest you all think I'm being a Pollyanna, I will say that there are some
things about the contest I that I think could have been improved:
The tasks were based upon weather calls that were not always correct. In
defense of the contest staff we're also talking about a week in which
MOST of the USA was experiencing bizarre weather - including 119 degrees
in Minnesota! When I was in Logan in 2010, weather was much stronger
and the tasks that were called would have been no problem if the weather
was just a touch better most days. Still, some different weather
forecast assumptions and a later grid-time would have been appreciated,
once we all caught on to the weather patterns that were prevalent during
the first week. I understand the reluctance to move the grid-time
later; conventional wisdom says its worse to miss an early day or a
chance for a big task - and before the contest people were having
success launching early... But at the same time there was a cumulative
toll being taken on pilots & crews (and staff) sitting out in the sun
day after day. I also agree that some (not all) of the backup tasks
were not well-thought-out. Sometimes reducing the minimum time and
using large turn radii can work; but not always. And I think that in
the future ANY contest staff should think hard about trying to put on a
Regionals & a Nats at the same time. I flew the Regionals and would
have hated not being able to compete; but I also think that there were
many people who showed up for the Regionals simply because a Nationals
was being held and they wanted to fly at the same site. Some of them
were not prepared for hard racing or for mountain-flying, and the wide
spread in performance and skill between the top and bottom of the 60
entrants made life harder for the Staff and some of the contestants. I
think the staff did the best job that they could, but I also think that
a single contest would have allowed more focus and reduced some of the
complaints and problems (Note that I don't think it would have prevented
any of the broken aircraft or altered the weather problems). And again
- the passing of Charlie "Lite" did not help matters. Whether or not
you personally like the contest staff members, you have to give them
credit for working hard to still put on a contest just a handful weeks
after his passing.

And for the last time: This was not a Safari, Encampment, Fun-Fly, or
XC-camp. It was a _contest_. Primarily, it was a NATIONAL
CHAMPIONSHIP. Its *supposed* to be tough and challenging and require
good judgement and tough decisions and calculated risks. It was not
billed as a contest for beginners. It was not intended to be a place
where people come to fly their first contest. Some people have
complained about Logan in the context of getting "Joe Glider Pilot" to
come fly contests... But "Joe" was not the target audience! If you
want to get "Joe" out, do what we do in WA: Hold a mock-contest over a
3-day weekend, with mentors and seminars and short simple tasks in a
place with strong lift and non-threatening terrain. Don't dumb-down
National Championships or restrict which sites are considered for major
events, based on the misguided assumption that somehow you'll increase
participation by doing so.

And to anyone who's actually read this Novella all the way through:
Thanks! :-)

--Noel

Noel has been using his personal blog space on the SSA web site to post
about his experiences and thoughts. I invite any SSA member to follow
suit. Others can follow member blogs using the RSS feeds. Read the
disclaimer.

Hopefully, bloggers will use this to describe their experiences, projects,
opinions, and ideas.

You can subscribe to various feeds; general news, particular committees,
and members.

See http://www.ssa.org/myhome.asp?mbr=91...how=blog&id=11
for details.

Inspire me,

Frank Whiteley

On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Pilots can and should be warned of local hazards, and they are already
made of aware of places like dry lakes that are known quantities that
won't change,

So why not make the known quantities (dry lake) a turnpoint, and
delete the turnpoints that are mountain peaks!!!! :-)



On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric Greenwell wrote:
but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
or even during the day.

If it's not a known quantity, then don't list it as a turnpoint!
Simple! Easy!


There is no debating that glide navigation into a known quantity is
better than having glide navigation into an unlandable point.

On 8/11/2011 9:24 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric wrote:


On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric wrote:
but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
or even during the day.

If it's not a known quantity, then don't list it as a turnpoint!
Simple! Easy!

My point was fields are not "known quantities", so listing them as
"landable" is a bad idea.

There is no debating that glide navigation into a known quantity is
better than having glide navigation into an unlandable point.


Turnpoints haven't been "turnpoints" for years but are "turn areas", and
where the pilot turns can be 10 miles from the turnpoint. In the olden
days when we did actually turn at turnpoints, airports were often used
as turnpoints because they were easy to identify by the pilot and the
person reading the film, not because they were landable. Some airports
used as turnpoints were, in fact, not landable by large wingspan gliders
(and even some smaller ones).

Even in those days, many turnpoints were NOT landable, but were easily
identifiable road intersections, dams, towers, and other objects (yes,
even mountain peaks).

Remember, it's a "turnpoint" and the pilot is not required to land
there, so there is no need to use a landable area. There is nothing
inherent about a landable area that makes it any easier to reach. I'd
rather the turnpoint was in an area of good soaring that on a landable area.

--
Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA (change ".netto" to ".us" to
email me)
- "Transponders in Sailplanes - Feb/2010" also ADS-B, PCAS, Flarm
http://tinyurl.com/yb3xywl
- "A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation Mar/2004" Much of what
you need to know tinyurl.com/yfs7tnz

On 8/11/11 11:10 AM, Eric Greenwell wrote:
On 8/11/2011 9:24 AM, Scott Alexander wrote:
On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric wrote:


On Aug 6, 6:25 pm, Eric wrote:
but a list of "suitable fields" for contest could easily
lead to more damage if pilots trust fields that can change day to day,
or even during the day.

If it's not a known quantity, then don't list it as a turnpoint!
Simple! Easy!

My point was fields are not "known quantities", so listing them as
"landable" is a bad idea.

There is no debating that glide navigation into a known quantity is
better than having glide navigation into an unlandable point.


Turnpoints haven't been "turnpoints" for years but are "turn areas", and
where the pilot turns can be 10 miles from the turnpoint. In the olden
days when we did actually turn at turnpoints, airports were often used
as turnpoints because they were easy to identify by the pilot and the
person reading the film, not because they were landable. Some airports
used as turnpoints were, in fact, not landable by large wingspan gliders
(and even some smaller ones).

Even in those days, many turnpoints were NOT landable, but were easily
identifiable road intersections, dams, towers, and other objects (yes,
even mountain peaks).

Remember, it's a "turnpoint" and the pilot is not required to land
there, so there is no need to use a landable area. There is nothing
inherent about a landable area that makes it any easier to reach. I'd
rather the turnpoint was in an area of good soaring that on a landable
area.


I'll add that in mountain areas where there is a lot of glider traffic
those unlandable mountain peaks (Yes I've seen
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-9RPJDoC5E :-))and similar waypoints are
very important for reporting positions on the radio. Think especially of
the white mountains. And sometimes the height of ridges and saddles are
important for glide computations, and marking known good "elevators" is
a great idea (really helps newer XC pilots). Out of my home base of
Williams, CA. There is classic convergence patterns along the Mendocino
ranges. A long chain of waypoints, none of them landable and everybody
reports their position along that loose chain. The landable waypoints
are all out in the valleys to either side, or if you screw up there are
often reasonable field choices. The same is typical of many other sites.

Hopefully pilots know how to drive their flight computer/PDA software to
do things like show landable waypoints with different symbols, show only
a list of landable waypoints, sort by distance to landable waypoints,
etc. and more importantly don't just take other people's word n any of
this. Study the waypoints in Google earth, by air-tour in a power plane,
and on foot inspections and make up their own minds. Locally we have
some pretty good discussions and even for one area host a small online
database of comments and pictures etc. people can post of waypoints and
landing sites.

Darryl