MAT's are dangerous

Let's go back in time to August 4th 2010. The sport of soaring lost a well respected man named Chris O'Callaghan. It was the 4th fatal sailplane accident in 4 weeks. This was a wake up call to many pilots operating without Flarm or Parachutes. Chris was flying on the return leg of a task when he collided head on with another sailplane traveling opposite direction to the final turnpoint.

What can we learn from history to avoid repeating it?

Can the tasks be a contributing factor to set up pilots for a collision?

Let's look at the task for August 4th 2010 in Uvalde.
1. Start North
2. Callaghan
3. UnoMasPc
4. Leakey
5. Batesville
6. Finish

For those of you unfamiliar with these turnpoints, Leakey is due north of Uvalde and Batesville is almost due south. That means that from the Leaky turnpoint to the Batesville turnpoint you are racing head on with gliders flying opposite direction from Batesville to the Finish. On a good day, you are traveling around 100 mph (85-90 knots true airspeed) which is a closure rate of 200 mph. You are racing between the same cumulus clouds, essentially on the same path, and same altitude (lift band).

Don't you remember from private pilot 101 that collision courses between aircraft are extremely hard to identify because there is no relative movement in your vision?

So what's the point? Tasks that are called which have pilots racing in opposite direction of each other should be avoided.

During a MAT race, there is a MAJOR threat of this happening because there is NO organized route for the task! It's just a bunch of gliders traveling in random directions as fast as they possibly can go. As cockpits become more technologically advanced with Flarm, GPS Maps, Thermal centering devices, etc, cockpit distractions have reached an ALL TIME HIGH.

If you have ever flown in a large contest you know first hand the dangers that exist when pilots are gaggling around the start cylinder. Many pilots will fly out of the way by many miles just to avoid this issue until they are ready to start and then return through the cylinder.

Out on course with a MAT the threat level is high for a mid air to happen. Take a look at Chris O'callaghans accident and tell me if this can't happen again with a similar scenario with a poorly designed task or an MAT.

And tell everyone again....why exactly are we doing MAT's???

On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 9:05:56 AM UTC-5, wrote:
Let's go back in time to August 4th 2010. The sport of soaring lost a well respected man named Chris O'Callaghan. It was the 4th fatal sailplane accident in 4 weeks. This was a wake up call to many pilots operating without Flarm or Parachutes. Chris was flying on the return leg of a task when he collided head on with another sailplane traveling opposite direction to the final turnpoint.

What can we learn from history to avoid repeating it?

Can the tasks be a contributing factor to set up pilots for a collision?

Let's look at the task for August 4th 2010 in Uvalde.
1. Start North
2. Callaghan
3. UnoMasPc
4. Leakey
5. Batesville
6. Finish

For those of you unfamiliar with these turnpoints, Leakey is due north of Uvalde and Batesville is almost due south. That means that from the Leaky turnpoint to the Batesville turnpoint you are racing head on with gliders flying opposite direction from Batesville to the Finish. On a good day, you are traveling around 100 mph (85-90 knots true airspeed) which is a closure rate of 200 mph. You are racing between the same cumulus clouds, essentially on the same path, and same altitude (lift band).

Don't you remember from private pilot 101 that collision courses between aircraft are extremely hard to identify because there is no relative movement in your vision?

So what's the point? Tasks that are called which have pilots racing in opposite direction of each other should be avoided.

During a MAT race, there is a MAJOR threat of this happening because there is NO organized route for the task! It's just a bunch of gliders traveling in random directions as fast as they possibly can go. As cockpits become more technologically advanced with Flarm, GPS Maps, Thermal centering devices, etc, cockpit distractions have reached an ALL TIME HIGH.

If you have ever flown in a large contest you know first hand the dangers that exist when pilots are gaggling around the start cylinder. Many pilots will fly out of the way by many miles just to avoid this issue until they are ready to start and then return through the cylinder.

Out on course with a MAT the threat level is high for a mid air to happen.. Take a look at Chris O'callaghans accident and tell me if this can't happen again with a similar scenario with a poorly designed task or an MAT.

And tell everyone again....why exactly are we doing MAT's???

Sean/Wilbur, while you are making some good points regarding the racing component missing or diminished in MAT's, conflating that with safety is not appropriate. For over 5 years now we have had PFlarm and it is mandatory in many contests. Going in and out of assigned turn points (with a 180 deg turn) creates the same situation as described above and we handle it just fine.. Having a 10 mi or so turn area in fact separates the effective turn points widely for each contestant in a way to can be said to improve safety. As you have stated yourself, the most gliders you see in an assigned race are right at the turn points. Your arguments on MAT's and safety to not hold water.
Herb

And yet the task you show is an AT. How many head-on collisions have occurred during MAT tasks? Come to think of it, how do mid-airs break down by task type? I'd bet that either the data is too sparse to be meaningful or that AT's have the most mid-airs (adjusted per task called) because of more gaggling. I'd be willing to bet, as well, that AT's (per task called) have the highest accident/damage rate of any task (more gaggling, more landouts, more risk of flying into bad weather). Don't get me wrong, I hate MAT's with a passion and I love AT's, but any type of task can be set up to be dangerous. It has been my experience that most CD's and task advisors are conscientious about avoiding head-on tasking. Not an easy job in contests with multiple classes.

I don't mean to offend, but are you really interested in safety or do you really just want rid of MAT's? I can get behind a movement to reduce the use of MAT's, but I don't care for the use of the safety issue as a mask for real motives.

Wallace (yes, that's my real name) Berry

Tiffany:
Take away his keyboard. Change his passwords. Please! It's going to be a long winter

John Cochrane BB

At 14:05 26 October 2016, wrote:
Let's go back in time to August 4th 2010. The sport of soaring
lost a
well=
respected man named Chris O'Callaghan. It was the 4th fatal
sailplane
acc=
ident in 4 weeks. This was a wake up call to many pilots
operating
without=
Flarm or Parachutes. Chris was flying on the return leg of a task
when
he=
collided head on with another sailplane traveling opposite
direction to
th=
e final turnpoint.

What can we learn from history to avoid repeating it?

Can the tasks be a contributing factor to set up pilots for a
collision?

Let's look at the task for August 4th 2010 in Uvalde. =20
1. Start North
2. Callaghan
3. UnoMasPc
4. Leakey
5. Batesville
6. Finish

For those of you unfamiliar with these turnpoints, Leakey is due
north of
U=
valde and Batesville is almost due south. That means that from
the Leaky
t=
urnpoint to the Batesville turnpoint you are racing head on with
gliders
fl=
ying opposite direction from Batesville to the Finish. On a good
day, you
=
are traveling around 100 mph (85-90 knots true airspeed) which
is a
closure=
rate of 200 mph. You are racing between the same cumulus
clouds,
essentia=
lly on the same path, and same altitude (lift band).

Don't you remember from private pilot 101 that collision courses
between
ai=
rcraft are extremely hard to identify because there is no relative
movement=
in your vision?=20

So what's the point? Tasks that are called which have pilots racing
in
oppo=
site direction of each other should be avoided.

During a MAT race, there is a MAJOR threat of this happening
because there
=
is NO organized route for the task! It's just a bunch of gliders
traveling
=
in random directions as fast as they possibly can go. As cockpits
become
m=
ore technologically advanced with Flarm, GPS Maps, Thermal
centering
device=
s, etc, cockpit distractions have reached an ALL TIME HIGH.

If you have ever flown in a large contest you know first hand the
dangers
t=
hat exist when pilots are gaggling around the start cylinder. Many
pilots
=
will fly out of the way by many miles just to avoid this issue until
they
a=
re ready to start and then return through the cylinder.

Out on course with a MAT the threat level is high for a mid air to
happen.
=
Take a look at Chris O'callaghans accident and tell me if this can't
happe=
n again with a similar scenario with a poorly designed task or an
MAT.

And tell everyone again....why exactly are we doing MAT's???

As far as I am aware the MAT is unique to the USA, I had to look up
what it was. Having looked it up I can see the reason why the rest
of the world does not do it.
Gaggling in the start sector has dangers, of course, but set against
that is that pilots expect gaggling in this area and their awareness
is, or should be heightened. The expectation is perhaps much less
when out on a task when pilots might expect to see other gliders in
a thermal or travelling in the same direction as themselves. Their
reasoning is faulty but understandable.
In general, competitions in the UK set both the turnpoints and the
order of visitation, both for Assigned Task (AT) and Assigned Area
Task (AAT). From time to time an inexperienced contest director will
set an early turnpoint with an out leg close to the reciprocal of the
in leg, which can be hazardous. This does not of course preclude
meeting a non-contest glider flying a reciprocal leg on his own task.
From a logical standpoint, having looked at the rules for a MAT I
would not want to set such a task, or indeed any task where the in
and out legs to a TP are close.

But, you missed something there, Wilbur. This was an ASSIGNED task. It just happened that the run from the next to last turnpoint, to the last turnpoint, and home were on almost reverse courses. And if the guy heading for home is "fat" and the guy going to the last turn is "a bit below where he would like to be", well, they are at the same altitude, at the same point in space, going opposite directions.

Your point about MATs being dangerous because "this could happen" is missing the point that this task set it up to happen (opposite direction, likely close altitude instead of spread over the working band). And, it is only when the CD requires a close in, steering turnpoint on a MAT, that you run the risk of it happening again.

The lesson from this is do not have a 180 degree turn at a final turnpoint close to home. The lesson is not MAT tasks are deadly dangerous.

If you want to know why we are doing MAT's ask Eric Mozer. If my memory serves me correctly, it is an outgrowth of the Pilot Option Speed Task, which I believe, he designed.

Steve Leonard

I agree with you Herb.

When I competed, I had more safety concerns on course in large gaggles (regionals and nationals) than I had on runs or turn points.

I guess, the "safety aspect" brought up will lead to banning ridge ontest flights (Mifflin, Ridge Soaring, Newcastle come to mind, I've flown all 3 places) due to even narrower height bands and even higher speeds!
Best example, the Newcastle "back ridge dump task" (to the tunnels by Blacksburg) can have dry speeds over 120MPH, that's a 240MPH closure speed.

A ridge out and back is drastically different. You know exactly where the opposite glider traffic will be as it is very obvious. You simply look right down the spine of the ridge.

Where is the like button?! All this talk of AATs, MATs, ATs, TATs, TITs (sorry different group) I miss the straight out out!


On Wednesday, October 26, 2016 at 8:16:07 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
Tiffany:
Take away his keyboard. Change his passwords. Please! It's going to be a long winter

John Cochrane BB

Thank you Wallace for sharing your hatred for MAT's.

Yes, the task I brought into light was in fact an AT. That is correct. Which is exactly my point. If this task was slightly different, with an extra turnpoint positioned off course to steer gliders away from a head on collision, then Chris O'Callaghan might be alive today.

We can learn from the past to prevent another air disaster.

So I will pose this question: With a MAT, what is limited pilots from choosing routes that go opposite direction flight paths just like this AT?


Yes Flarm helps to mitagate that threat, but the threat is still there. Calling a task that routes gliders head on with each other is a major mistake.. Allowing an MAT that allows gliders to route themselves head on with gliders is also a major mistake.

What is safer? A controlled route AT that does NOT pose a threat of a mid air or a uncontrolled random route in all MAT's?

My position is that MAT's have two concerns. 1. Like Wallace Berry mentioned, they are not any fun. And 2. More importantly, it decreases safety as opposed to the alternative.

Who will have the next mid air? Will it be you Herb? You say you can handle it just fine with flarm, but nobody is immune to accidents, nobody. As soon as you adopt that attitude, your chances of having an accident have drastically.

There are bold pilots and old pilots, but there are no old bold pilots.