Hard Deck

I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

Am I the only one who sees the irony of two of the often expressed
views, Hard Deck vs. Dwindling Contest Participation?



On 1/30/2018 11:14 AM, wrote:
I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

--
Dan, 5J

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:12:08 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-8, Mike the Strike wrote:

Karl said it for me! Any experienced cross-country pilot should be capable of making these decisions for themselves and not be subjected to an increasing barrage of restrictive rules. There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try. Similarly flying near mountain ridges where a rough thermal could toss you into the rocks but smooth ridge lift or weaker thermals might be safe. And if you can't properly plan and execute a final glide, you should take up another sport!

Mike

“One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity there ain’t nothing can beat teamwork.�
Mark Twain

what the hell did mark twain know. he was dumb enough to spend summers in elmira, when he could been in Uvalde or Hobbs.

That is in the face of most of the USofA law, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Try to tell that to a traffic court judge.......:-(

Totally I'm glad I'm not on the US TC, no matter what you do, you seem to be wrong.
I wonder how many are "lookers" vs. "contestants"?

I feel participants should drive the rules, not lookers.
No, I have not been contacted on rules for a few years, I have not been registered for a contest, only flew a day or so as, "edumacated baggage" as I wasn't current enough to be safe to me or others.

‘Nuther consideration. Rules simplification has been a concern of many contest pilots, and thus the rules committee, for years. I can’t imagine how many cosine thetas John Good would have to pull out of his MIT hat to make this hard deck business lawyer proof and executable by Guy Byars our scoring “guy.�

Karl Striedieck

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:14:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

Just for clarity let me point out the above is sarcasm. Meant to mock those who would add rules, any rules.

Rules of golf: 200 pages
Sailing: 190 pages
Tennis: 38 pages
Soaring: 34 pages

Argument against rules is a red herring. Anyone using that as an excuse not to fly contests, I just don't buy it. If you can decipher an aeronautical chart you can figure out the rules of soaring.

It's not hard. Here is what is needed. The current rule

5.6.2.3 The CD may declare additional airspace to be closed.

All that is needed is one more sentence.

5.6.2.3 The CD may declare additional airspace to be closed, and may specify penalties for such airspace. The provisions of this rule can be used to set minimum MSL altitudes in some or all of the task area, and to score pilots as landing out if they descent below such altitudes.

Period. That is all that is needed.

As for the scoring program, it works just like restricted airspace now. Put in an SUA file, the scoring program says "warning, entry to restricted airspace" and the scorer can ether put in a penalty, or in the "edit flight log" box enter the current position as the scored landing position.

One may dislike the rule, but it is not complex to write or to administer.

John Cochrane

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 2:03:08 PM UTC-8, Clay wrote:
Rules of golf: 200 pages
Sailing: 190 pages
Tennis: 38 pages
Soaring: 34 pages

Argument against rules is a red herring. Anyone using that as an excuse not to fly contests, I just don't buy it. If you can decipher an aeronautical chart you can figure out the rules of soaring.

It would make an interesting pole, among all pilots who might consider racing (participants and potential participants): What is your number one concern in soaring competition: 1) Safety, 2) rules complexity.

In my own informal polling #1 wins hands down, #2 is rarely mentioned if at all.

Acceptance of risk is an interesting and well studied bit of human psychology. The longer you engage in risk the more accepting of it you become, even though the risk does not change.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 12:00:05 PM UTC-7, Jim White wrote:
Time to change the subject line?

I have been thinking about the hard deck idea. Possibly fine in flat land
soaring but I am not sure it adds much when ridge flying.

I perceive another problem: Turbos are even more dangerous near the ground
than pure gliders. I may be happy in my 27 at 500ft but in a turbo?

Setting a 1000ft deck because that is safer for turbos will take away the
advantage that real gliders have in this zone. Many pure pilots would say
this advantage goes some of the way to make up for the additional
opportunities turbo pilots have in competition.

Setting a turbo deck for everyone will force everyone to go to the dark
side!

Jim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXFaPNqKtS8

Was just sent the above link. The 19:00-minute mark starts a good discussion.

A low airspeed skidding turn below 200 agl followed with a stall/spin will result in a hard, nose down ground thump. I did watch the entire clip, but no mention that our contests represent any additional danger to these type accidents(might have missed that).
They also speak of stress and how that may play a part, with other thoughts.. Good review. They do encourage more safety discussion's on all of our parts which is a good thing. Helps keep many in the safety loop.


Best. Tom. #711.