Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.

To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.

Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.

However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.

If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide.. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.

Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.

Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.

Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.

So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.

Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”

So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):

• Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.

• Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).

• Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?

Let the flame wars begin! ;-)

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.



-----------------------------------------------------------

Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?



If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.



To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.



Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.



However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.



If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.



Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.



Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.



Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.



So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.



Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”



So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):



• Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.



• Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).



• Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?



Let the flame wars begin! ;-)

Sean, these are great points! I know of at least one more dangerous attempt to save points that happened last year.

Our RC needs to stop coming up with these "great" ideas. No more experiments. Please revert the rule back to the old formula and give it a rest.

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:33:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:

I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.







-----------------------------------------------------------



Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?







If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.







To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.







Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.







However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.







If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.







Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.







Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.







Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.







So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.







Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”







So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):







• Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.







• Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).







• Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?







Let the flame wars begin! ;-)



Sean, these are great points! I know of at least one more dangerous attempt to save points that happened last year.



Our RC needs to stop coming up with these "great" ideas. No more experiments. Please revert the rule back to the old formula and give it a rest.

Please document this attempt (to me privately if you like)

John Godfrey (QT)
RC Chair

On Monday, January 20, 2014 6:47:53 AM UTC-5, John Godfrey (QT) wrote:
On Sunday, January 19, 2014 10:33:07 PM UTC-5, wrote:

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:



I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments.















-----------------------------------------------------------







Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?















If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences.















To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment.















Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general.















However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place.















If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible.















Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb.















Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty.















Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty.















So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’.















Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!”















So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind):















• Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400.















• Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-).















• Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200?















Let the flame wars begin! ;-)







Sean, these are great points! I know of at least one more dangerous attempt to save points that happened last year.







Our RC needs to stop coming up with these "great" ideas. No more experiments. Please revert the rule back to the old formula and give it a rest.



Please document this attempt (to me privately if you like)



John Godfrey (QT)

RC Chair

The pilot did not endanger anyone so thank you for your offer but I have to decline. I can't even believe you are asking for this.

Please do not try to save people from themselves as you will never succeed. You are just making making our life difficult.

I never had a problem coming 300 feet higher only once ever I came just shy of 500 feet loosing my extra 300 feet. According to your rules I would have been a land out even though I exhibited right judgement.

You need to finally get this you are hurting the sport with constant tinkering!

On Sunday, January 19, 2014 8:46:02 PM UTC-5, Sean F (F2) wrote:
I thought the viewpoint below (not mine) on the US finishing rule was very interesting. Interesting enough to share with the broader pilot community and start a discussion about it. I am all for safer soaring, but after hearing this argument, I see circumstances (and direct .igc examples) where the existing US finish rule may in fact "repel" pilots from the safety of the finish airport in hope of "saving points" rather than proceeding swiftly to the airport and using any remaining safety buffer energy for the pattern and landing. In other words, what is more compelling: 1) the prospect of saving points, or B) the risks of circling around 700 ft. AGL with low energy? Is the US finish penalty perhaps too harsh? Is the average contest pilot who loses energy on final glide (and now faces a small penalty or perhaps the "sting" of an administrative land out) more likely to simply accept the penalty by flying straight ahead and entering the pattern or try and save those points it via low circling outside the finish circle? I look forward to hearing everyone's thoughts and comments. ----------------------------------------------------------- Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working? If I understand correctly, the current penalty (administrative landout) for an arrival more than 200’ below the specified Min Finish Height (MFH) was established in response to a number of accidents and/or near accidents where marginal final glides were continued to the point where a safe outlanding could not be accomplished. This rule has been in place for several seasons now, so there should be enough data available to determine how well the rule is working, and if there are any unintended consequences. To set the stage for this discussion, I presume that the intent of the rule was to motivate pilots to start final glides high enough to obviate low finishes and/or low thermalling attempts. The idea was that there is no competitive difference between finishing at ground level and finishing at some safe non-zero height, as long as the penalty for a low finish is severe enough (in the case of the current rule, an ‘administrative landout’ at the finish point), and offsetting the finish point upward (and outward to the finish circle) also provides for a more orderly pattern entry and landing environment. Evidence to date suggests that the rule is having the desired effect, as far as finishing higher is concerned. Most if not all navigation software now supports the concept of final gliding to a specified altitude at a specified distance from the finish point. Competition traces show that pilots routinely start their final glides at an altitude that takes the vertical/horizontal offset into account, and mass finishes have become more orderly in general. However, there is an alternate theory that the nature of the current rule creates a set of conditions where the pilot is highly motivated toward unsafe and risky behavior – the opposite of the intended effect, and the overall effect of the rule over time may, in fact, be detracting from safety rather than improving it. Instead of ‘taking speed points off the table’ so that the pilot is motivated to make a safe off-field landing, the rule in fact puts them all right in front of the pilot’s nose for the entire final glide. A pilot who, for any number of reasons, finds himself in a situation where he has enough altitude to easily make the finish airport, but not quite enough to get over the MFH-200’ ‘wall’ has nothing to lose (except possibly his glider and/or his life!) and everything to gain from highly risky and dangerous deviations and/or low thermalling. A pilot may start a conservative final glide with plenty of altitude in the bank and at a reasonable MC setting, only to find that he has encountered worse than anticipated sink, or an unanticipated wind switch. The pilot may well want to stop and gain more altitude, but can’t find any lift along the course line, and any significant deviation will naturally make the problem worse, not better, up to and including causing the off-field landing the pilot was trying to avoid in the first place. If this alternate theory holds water, there should be evidence of the presumed risky behavior in the IGC traces from competitions, showing normally conservative pilots engaging in unsafe/risky behavior late in the final glide. Such behavior might be something like climbing at 0.1kt at 500’ AGL over unlandable terrain just outside the finish circle, or deliberately pulling up to below stall speed at 500’ agl 1 mile away from the finish airport over the wall, and thereby causing a low altitude, low energy arrival at the airport, or maybe a poorly executed field landing just outside the finish circle due to a failed thermalling attempt, when a straight-in approach to the field would still have been possible. Exhibit A: Trace shows a pilot approaching the finish circle with sufficient altitude for a normal pattern and landing, but insufficient to clear the MFH-200 ‘wall’, and deliberately turning away just before entering the 1-mile ring. Trace shows the pilot makes one full 360 degree turn (presumably a thermalling attempt), losing approximately 100’ before continuing on for a low-energy pattern and landing. Further analysis shows the pilot started a conservative final glide some 20 miles out, but encountered an unanticipated wind direction change from a tailwind to a headwind, with no opportunities for a mid-glide climb. Exhibit B: Trace shows a normally very conservative pilot approaching the finish circle and deliberately pulling up to below stall speed to just make it over the MFH-200 ‘wall’, followed by an extremely low altitude, low energy finish over tall trees to an airport . Pilot was reported to have said that he had tightened his shoulder straps in anticipation of crashing into trees. Pilot’s score for the day shows a finish penalty close to the maximum non-landout penalty. Exhibit C: Trace shows pilot coming off ridge at Mifflin and making a 360 turn (presumably searching for lift) just outside the 1-mile finish circle, and then continuing into the finish circle. Pilot received a 20 point finish penalty. So, is the rule working or not? Is it actually causing more problems than it solves? The clear, unequivocal evidence of normally sane, conservative pilots doing stupid, risky things just outside the finish circle, at or slightly below the MFH-200 altitude strongly suggests that the rule isn’t working and is suffering from ‘unintended consequences’. Assume you are a highly competitive pilot in 3rd place on the next-to-last day of a 10-day nationals, 50 points out of 1st place, and 50 points from 4th place. You are in what you believe to be the final thermal, climbing toward final glide altitude. According to John Cochrane’s fine paper “Just a little faster, please”, you should start the final glide aggressively, but finish it conservatively, counting on high-probability weak thermals to save the day if necessary. However, you know there is a hangman’s noose waiting for you at the 1-mile finish circle if you can’t make the MFH-200 ‘wall’, so you continue the climb for a few more turns, willing to spend another minute or two ‘unnecessarily’ as insurance against the death penalty.. OTOH, every second you spend in that thermal is degrading your average speed, and you haven’t gotten to 3rd place in this contest by wasting time. You leave the thermal with MC 3.0 + 500’ over the MFH, plenty conservative without wasting too much time. You closely monitor progress, and after a while you see that you are losing ground on the final glide solution, but aren’t sure why. You immediately slow to MC 2.0 and start thinking about stopping to climb again, but there don’t seem to be many opportunities for this. Meanwhile, the final glide situation continues to slowly deteriorate. You now find yourself at 1500’ agl, 5 miles from the runway (4 miles from the finish line) with a 700’ agl MFH. You can easily make the runway, but you can’t quite make the 500’ agl wall – what to do? At this point, not only are speed points not ‘off the table’, the entire contest is riding on what you do in the next few seconds. If you penetrate that 1-mile circle, you have deliberately put your neck into the hangman’s noose and tripped the trapdoor release. OTOH, if you can pull off a miracle save, you can maybe survive the disaster with a non-fatal finish penalty. Let’s see; on the one hand is certain death, and on the other hand is a ‘Hail Mary’ play that just might save the day – which one do you think you would choose, in the few seconds left to decide? I’m reminded of another John Cochrane article in which he says something like “I never thought I would do this – until I did!” So, assuming you are now convinced (not likely, but…) that the current MFH-200 ‘death penalty’ rule is causing problems as much as it is solving them, what to do? One thing I can say for sure isn’t a solution, and that is “blame the pilots”. This is an easy solution, as doing otherwise would require recognition that the current rule is not only less-than-perfect , it might be fatally flawed. Other than ‘kill the messenger’, I would suggest the following ideas as possibilities (feel free to chime with others, keeping the law of unintended consequences in mind): • Increase the ‘non-fatal’ height from 200 to 500’, with a corresponding increase in the MFH. For example, if the contest organizers think that 500’ agl at one mile is sufficient for a reasonably safe pattern entry and landing, the MFH should be set at 1000’ agl at 1 mile, and the ‘death wall’ at 500’ agl. This still doesn’t eliminate the ‘Hail Mary’ option at 1.1 miles, but it gives the pilot more than twice as much wriggle room for problems on final glide. I’m pretty sure that the last-minute ‘Hail Mary’ play will look a lot less attractive to me with only 50 points on the line, instead of 400. • Award a 50 point bonus for arriving at the finish circle more than 500’ above the MFH, in addition to the above. This incentivizes ‘good’ behavior in addition to penalizing ‘bad’ behavior. If this were to be put in practice, it might turn out that the winning play would be to start out going for the bonus, and maybe converting to a normal MFH-targeted final glide if the glide deteriorates to the point where the chances for getting the bonus gets too iffy. You now have more than enough energy to arrive slightly above MFH at a good speed and no problem fitting into a pattern, and the conversion probably doesn’t cost too much. I don’t really know, but I’d bet BB would have it figured out by the time the first contest rolls around! ;-). • Replace the ‘death penalty’ entirely, and with a significant, but non-fatal penalty. For a pilot in the top 5 or 10 places, a 50 point penalty would probably do the job. Maybe 25 points for MFH -1 to MFH – 100, and 50 points below MFH – 200? Let the flame wars begin! ;-)

First , let me say that I like little in life more than a nice speed pass down the runway after a long challanging flight. That said, having observed pilot behavior since the implementation of the rule in the current form, I think the sport is safer than it was, or would be, without this rule.
I have had several pilots provide feedback that this rule made them choose
to abandon marginal final glides and land safely or to land "across the street" from the airport instead of trying to squeek onto the airport.
The decision height, to go or stop, has been raised by this rule philosophy which, in my view, is a positive thing for safety.
It is always possible to find examples such as the ones described above, but I submit that they are small in number and not representative of what most pilots will do.
The RC has been considering some changes to this rule that would tune it up without abandoning the philosophy. They are electing to make no changes, based upon the 1014 proposed rule changes, but will continue to look at this area of the rules.

UH
Former RC Chair

I think Hank may have missed the main point of the article. The author is not proposing to lower the finish height, on the contrary, he would raise it. The issue centers on the penalty that seems to have the opposite effect of the intent of the rule.

I notice that all of the pilots in the examples started final glide with normal margins for safety. We can presume that the majority of pilots in these races finished above the MFH with no problems. The next crash pilot will not be among them, but the same could be said for a zero finish height. We all try to be safe in this sport and few start out to be low at the finish. The problem comes when we did everything right but conditions change in front of us and degrades the final glide to a point where we are faced with the conundrum of a big penalty or a hail mary.

Seems to me that if we make the penalty for finishing below MFH too high, we only increase the temptation to try the hail mary. Take the rule’s logic further and increase the penalty even more. Says the logic, “that will make people start final glide even higher and fewer people will finish low”. If we simply make the MFH high enough, there is little reason to have any penalty, since there would be little chance for an unsafe entry into the pattern. While that may be true, the problem occurs with those pilots who find themselves in deteriorating conditions that exceed their safety margin established in the final thermal. The counter logic offered by the author admits that the more valuable the finish, the more willing a contest pilot will be to try and pull off a save. Suppose the penalty for a 200´low finish was disqualification from the contest. Would not that cause more otherwise sane pilots to bow to the option of trying to pull it out with a low save?

On the other hand if the penalty were more modest, a hurt but still recoverable, discretion would drive one to accept the penalty and live to compete the next day. I agree with the author that the rule should include a higher MFH but with less of a penalty, thereby placing a lower value on missing the MFH. An additional point in favor of a less costly penalty, it helps the pilot focus on the pattern ahead rather than the altimeter.

There should be some penalty for a low finish but so not big as to give an incentive to attempt a last-mile save. Perhaps a bonus for finishing a bit high creates more value on that side of the line and promote more safety.

If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.

It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.


I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.

So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.

It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.

A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?

John Cochrane

On Monday, January 20, 2014 10:24:53 AM UTC-6, wrote:
If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.



It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.





I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.



So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.



It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.



A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?



John Cochrane

I would like to add to BB's comments that for the last 2-3 years we had a 900' AGL, 1 mile finish rule at our Northern IL Soaring Contest (NISC)with otherwise reg. penalty points. In that season-long contest I have entered last year 21 flights of which I believe 2 received penalty points or a land-out score. Both of those were after final glides through dead air, bot finished above 500' at the 1 mile marker. I was never concerned about a safe landing. I second John's comments regarding moving up the fence rather than diluting the rules. The current rule-set already allows for the CD to set a higher finish alt.
Herb

John C,

With regard to your post below, I think that a hard deck within 5 miles of the finish might be safer than the current MFH that goes up the further you get away from the finish. It would certainly a easier to calculate at a busy time.

On another subject, a while ago you expressed enthusiasm for the new (optional) regatta start. Given how concerned you are with safety, I'd be interested in hearing your feelings regarding the safety of this type of start compared to the way we start now. This is a serious attempt to learn, it's not intended to be snarky.

-John, Q3

On Monday, January 20, 2014 11:24:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.

It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.

I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.

So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.

It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.

A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?

John Cochrane

John,

I was included on an email discussion thread which included the email which I posted last night. I thought it was important and decided to post here and invite broader discussion. I did not have "permission." I think the ID of the author is unimportant. I take responsibility for the post but also want to make sure that everyone knows that the (in my opinion excellent) email itself was not written by me. I cannot take credit for that.

The intent of posting is absolutely NOT to call the RC into question. I think the RC is doing an excellent job of managing the various "special interests" and trying to address safety issues and manage the rules with an eye towards fun, growth & attendance. I have deep respect for the job the RC does and has done even though I have clearly complained about some rules from time to time.

I agree, the 700 margin that is currently provided by the rule is probably to low. Here is my logic...

I think there are two basic options: 1) raise the height 2) lower the penalty (option 3 is to remove the rule entirely...but I am deeply concerned about that idea)

The problem with lowering the penalty is that the average contest pilot is (whether he/she admits it or not) going to fight to avoid a 25 points penalty, let alone 400. Getting the penalty formula "just right" so that the penalty is high enough to produce the desired behavior (encouraging the contest pilot to build in a greater risk buffer height before embarking on final glide) yet low enough to encourage the pilot to safely finish straight ahead if final glide degrades into the penalty zone is going to be VERY DIFFICULT for the RC and contest pilots to "negotiate". ;-)

I think some pilots would circle outside of the finish cylinder was finish penalty altitude was 200 ft and the penalty was 5 points. Its just the nature of competition and the fact that most of us get away with it.

Therefore we need enough margin to allow for safe circling outside the finish cylinder for this rule to not have "side effects" which are creating unintended risks. If there is a penalty, pilots are going to fight to avoid it. It's just that simple.

Sean

On Monday, January 20, 2014 11:24:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.



It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.





I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.



So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.



It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.



A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?



John Cochrane