Seniors Contest

Another thought on this subject from a non-completing
pilots perspective is the additional complication brought
on by the fact that other recreational pilots (some
without radios) may also be in landing patterns. If
there were a way to run contests to eliminate this
possibility then it’s only an issue for the competing
pilots. Other wise it’s an issue for everyone using
the airport.



At 05:30 10 March 2005, Eric Greenwell wrote:
Kilo Charlie wrote:
I've been flying for 34 years Eric and racing for
12. I see that you are
ranked 232 and I am 121....does that make me better
able to judge racing
rules?! Let's talk about the facts and not get into
a ****ing match about
experience.

My experience was not mentioned in the post - I was
wondering about
yours. I still make no claim about my experience. I
was responding to
your comment:

I am unaware of there ever being a mishap with the
gate finish Marc.

I first assumed you had been racing for a while, but
it then seemed
unlikely, since you weren't aware of finish gate problems.
I'm surprised
you've raced for 12 years without witnessing or at
least hearing about
accidents and close calls.

I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps
that you or others know
about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

I've seen several gear up landings, at least once with
pilots going
head-on at each other because one finished backwards,
some slow speed
pullups leading to a scary low turn to final a whisker
away from
cartwheeling, a pilot landing short in a rock-filled
field because the
'rolling finish' didn't make it to the pavement. There's
more that will
come to me after a bit, but those are some that I've
witnessed.
Thankfully, no bad injuries or fatalities.

I'm with Marc - I think I'm safer with the new high
finish cylinders
than the traditional ground-based gate. It was a thrill
bombing through
it at 50 feet off the ground, but I'm over that now.

--
Change 'netto' to 'net' to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps that you or others
know
about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

A small sample of serious finish accidents.

1.
NTSB Identification: FTW94LA237 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 16, 1994 in LITTLEFIELD, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/12/1995
Aircraft: SCHWEIZER SGS 1-26E, registration: N33915
Injuries: 1 Serious.
WITNESSES SAID THE PILOT COMPLETED A GLIDER COMPETITION LOW AND SLOW AT
THE FINISH. THE PILOT TURNED LEFT ONTO THE DOWNWIND LEG, FOLLOWED BY A
STEEP LEFT TURN AND NOSE PITCH DOWN. IMPACT OCCURRED NOSE LOW STILL
TURNING LEFT.

2.
NTSB Identification: FTW86FRG30 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 32434.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, August 04, 1986 in UVALDE, TX
Aircraft: SCHLEICHER ASW-20, registration: N20TS
Injuries: 1 Serious.
ACFT WAS COMPETING IN THE NATL SOARING CHAMPIONSHIPS AND HAD JUST
CROSSED THE FINISH LINE AT 50' AGL AND 85 KNS A/S WHEN IT ENTERED A
MANEUVER TO REVERSE DIRECTION AND CLIMB TO PATTERN ALT FOR LANDING.
DURING THE TURN THE ACFT STALLED AND STRUCK A POWER LINE DURING THE
SUBSEQUENT DESCENT. AFTER IMPACT, THE ACFT SLID INTO A VEHICLE. THE PLT
MAY HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED BY OTHER ACFT OPERATING IN THE PATTERN.

3.
NTSB Identification: LAX90FA310 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 45117.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 02, 1990 in CALIFORNIA CITY, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/30/1992
Aircraft: Schempp-Hirth NIMBUS-2C, registration: N39285
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
THE PILOT WAS PARTICIPATING IN A ROUND-ROBIN SOARING CHAMPIONSHIP
CONTEST. WHEN THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT 2 MILES EAST OF THE FINISH LINE THE
PILOT RADIOED THAT HE WAS INBOUND. WHEN THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT 1/4 OF A
MILE EAST OF THE FINISH LINE WITNESSES OBSERVED ITS AIRSPEED APPEARED
TO BE LESS THAN NORMAL. AFTER CROSSING THE FINISH LINE THE GLIDER
ENTERED INTO A CLIMBING RIGHT TURN. WHEN THE GLIDER COMPLETED ABOUT A
180 DEGREE TURN, IT STALLED AND ENTERED INTO A SPIN. A GLIDER PILOT WHO
OVERTOOK THE ACCIDENT GLIDER REPORTED THAT THE ACCIDENT PILOT BEGAN TO
PREMATURELY DISPERSE HIS WATER BALLAST ABOUT 10 MILES EAST OF THE
AIRPORT FINISH LINE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE PILOT'S IMPROPER DECISION TO EXECUTE THE RAPID CLIMBING TURN
MANEUVER AT AN INSUFFICIENT AIRSPEED. CONTRIBUTING TO THIS ACCIDENT WAS
THE PREMATURE DUMPING OF THE GLIDER'S WATER BALLAST.

4.
NYC00LA171
On June 19, 2000, about 1630 Eastern Daylight Time, a Schempp-Hirth,
Ventus 2CM motorglider, N800PF, was substantially damaged while
maneuvering to land at the Warren-Sugarbush Airport, Warren, Vermont.
The certificated commercial pilot was seriously injured. Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for
the personal local flight conducted under 14 CFR Part 91.

According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, the pilot was
participating in a glider race at the airport. The race was to be
conducted without motorized power and the motorglider was towed to
altitude.

According to the pilot, after crossing the finish line at the end of
the race, he received a radio call from the airport that the winds had
changed direction and landings were being conducted on Runway 22. The
pilot executed a 180-degree turn and entered the traffic pattern for
the runway. While turning base to final, the pilot was unable to stop
the turn with full opposite aileron due to turbulence. As the
motorglider descended, the pilot was able to level the wings, but was
90 degrees to the runway and "into the trees." The pilot raised the
nose of the glider to decrease airspeed, and the motorglider stalled,
impacting trees short of the runway.

The winds reported by an airport located about 13 miles east of the
accident, at 1651, were from 350 degrees at 7 knots.



Two more, not contest participants, but fatalities doing contest
finishes.

5.
NYC01FA071
HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On January 28, 2001, a Schempp-Hirth, Discus CS glider, N814CU, was
substantially damaged while attempting to land at Wurtsboro Airport,
Wurtsboro, New York. The certificated private pilot was fatally
injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal
flight. No flight plan had been filed for the local flight conducted
under 14 CFR Part 91.
......
The pilot performed a high-speed pass down runway 23, and either
touched the runway momentarily, or was very close to it. He then pulled
up to about 500 feet agl, and entered a left crosswind, followed by a
downwind for runway 23. The traffic pattern appeared normal to the
observers.

While on base leg, the glider was observed to enter a left turn prior
to having reached a position from which the turn to final would
normally have been made. The left turn increased in bank angle, the
nose dropped and the glider disappeared from view. Some of the
witnesses said the glider appeared slow and was in a nose up attitude.
The bank angle was estimated to be in excess of 60 degrees, and the
nose down attitude at least 45 degrees.
....

6. This was on the rest day of 15 meter nationals

NTSB Identification: FTW01LA179.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please
contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, August 12, 2001 in Uvalde, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 2/20/2002
Aircraft: PDPS PZL-Bielsko SZD-55-1, registration: N55VW
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The commercial pilot was completing the third leg of a soaring 300 km
triangle. The glider owner, who was in contact with the pilot via
radio, reported that the pilot stated he had the field in sight
approximately 8 miles from the airport. The glider entered the traffic
pattern for runway 15 and was turning base when the owner observed it
enter a spin. A witness reported that the glider banked, "appeared to
have stalled, and spiraled counter-clockwise" in a nose low attitude
into the ground. Another witness, located approximately a block from
the accident site, stated that she "looked up and saw the glider
spinning counter clockwise very fast and falling nose first." The
glider impacted the ground and came to rest approximately 1/4 mile from
the approach end of runway. The pilot had accumulated approximately 270
total glider flight hours and 5 flight hours in the same make and model
as the accident aircraft. No pre-impact anomalies were noted with the
glider during the examination.

(There was a low pass here too, though not mentioned in the official
report. I guess pilots are smart enough not to talk too much to the FAA
and NTSB!)


John Cochrane
BB

Mark James Boyd wrote:
John,

Wow! Good job finding these. They are very enlightening.

I did a high-speed low pass pullup 180 once. Just once.
I was low energy on the last 30 degrees of turn back and didn't
like it. Fortunately there was nobody around to see my cross-runway
landing. I don't think I'll do it again.


Sounds like your "high-speed" wasn't that fast. If you didn't have
enough altitude to make a normal landing, something was wrong with your
technique.

Mark,

I think what you are getting at is what we in the UK
call a control point, a final turnpoint that must be
rounded in the normal way, but is only maybe 5-10 km
from the airfield, each glider is a few hundred feet
(or more depending on the pilots saftey margins) up
at this point and after turning the control point,
competitors turn to the airfield and dive to a known
linear finish gate. There is generally no minimun
finish height so often the gate is crossed under 50
ft but as all competitors are coming in from a fixed
direction towards a small and clear area of land it
eliminates the vast majority of head to head at low
altitude issues and I've never seen congestion at a
control point myself (altough as my own competition
experience is rather limited I won't say it never happens).

As for non comp gliders, everywhere I've been competing
the daily briefing for non-comp pilots always stressed
the comps procedures as well as use of the radio to
ensure separation in launch, landing and finishing.
As long as the finish gate is suitably chosen to be
away from the main landing area and obstacles with
space to land after as well as an easy entry into circuit
for those with the speed to do so it can be both a
safe and an exciting way to finish without the artificial
complications of raised finish lines.

John,

Whilst some of those accidents are attributable
to finish gates, I'd certainly question your thinking
the last three.
Taking the Discus crash for example, in a Discus
(in which I have a reasonable if not spectacular amount
of time), 500' is adequate, if not totally comfortable,
for a decent enough circuit, that crash, as well as
the others, from the reports seem to be the whole 'slightly
low in the circuit leads to a poor turn leading to
a spin in' issue.
Where the blame in that lies is the topic for another
thread but that, like the other last three, does not
seem to be attributable directly to finish gate issues
as surely a pilot just making it over a 500' 1 mile
finish gate would be in exactly the same situation
as someone who has just got a few hundred feet of height
from a competition pullup?

The others seem to be 'insufficient speed, insufficient
time to recover from the spin', afaiks the same situation
as trying to scrabble over a start gate at 450' and
screwing up.

It's been said before but unfortunately you can't legislate
good judgement.

Cheers

Jamie Denton

At 18:30 10 March 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
John,

Wow! Good job finding these. They are very enlightening.

I did a high-speed low pass pullup 180 once. Just
once.
I was low energy on the last 30 degrees of turn back
and didn't
like it. Fortunately there was nobody around to see
my cross-runway
landing. I don't think I'll do it again.

Other than this, it seems like the accidents involve
other
aircraft in the pattern. If they aren't part of the
competition,
that could be a big problem. One of our contest pilots
mentioned
the FAA X out the runway for some contests to prevent
non-contest pilots
from landing. He recalled this from one competition.

I wonder about the cylinder finish with the center
of the
cylinder at the airport, however. Pardon me (not a
contest pilot)
but doesn't a remote cylinder or maybe a remote final
turnpoint
make more sense? Then everyone is coming from the
same direction inbound.
It seems like it is much easier to see others this
way than during
closure from random directions.

Some remote entry point, perhaps? I'm sure this
has been thought of and
used before. Any comments on the results? Sure, this
would cause
congestion at the entry point, but I'd rather have
congestion with
other gliders at 500 feet than congestion with cars
and kids and
glide calculation and water AND head-on gliders at
50 feet.

But this is armchair from me. I'm interested in
what you guys
think, and if you've experienced remote finish points/cylinders...

By this I mean the 'competition' part is over at 500-1000
feet
and gliders enter the pattern at a well-known, same
entry point.

In article ,
BB wrote:
I'd appreciate the details of any and all mishaps
that you or others
know
about that you feel are a result of finish gates.

A small sample of serious finish accidents.

1.
NTSB Identification: FTW94LA237 .
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System
(DMS). Please
contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, July 16, 1994 in LITTLEFIELD,
TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 1/12/1995
Aircraft: SCHWEIZER SGS 1-26E, registration: N33915
Injuries: 1 Serious.
WITNESSES SAID THE PILOT COMPLETED A GLIDER COMPETITION
LOW AND SLOW AT
THE FINISH. THE PILOT TURNED LEFT ONTO THE DOWNWIND
LEG, FOLLOWED BY A
STEEP LEFT TURN AND NOSE PITCH DOWN. IMPACT OCCURRED
NOSE LOW STILL
TURNING LEFT.

2.
NTSB Identification: FTW86FRG30 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 32434.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Monday, August 04, 1986 in UVALDE,
TX
Aircraft: SCHLEICHER ASW-20, registration: N20TS
Injuries: 1 Serious.
ACFT WAS COMPETING IN THE NATL SOARING CHAMPIONSHIPS
AND HAD JUST
CROSSED THE FINISH LINE AT 50' AGL AND 85 KNS A/S WHEN
IT ENTERED A
MANEUVER TO REVERSE DIRECTION AND CLIMB TO PATTERN
ALT FOR LANDING.
DURING THE TURN THE ACFT STALLED AND STRUCK A POWER
LINE DURING THE
SUBSEQUENT DESCENT. AFTER IMPACT, THE ACFT SLID INTO
A VEHICLE. THE PLT
MAY HAVE BEEN DISTRACTED BY OTHER ACFT OPERATING IN
THE PATTERN.

3.
NTSB Identification: LAX90FA310 .
The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 45117.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, September 02, 1990 in CALIFORNIA
CITY, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/30/1992
Aircraft: Schempp-Hirth NIMBUS-2C, registration: N39285
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
THE PILOT WAS PARTICIPATING IN A ROUND-ROBIN SOARING
CHAMPIONSHIP
CONTEST. WHEN THE GLIDER WAS ABOUT 2 MILES EAST OF
THE FINISH LINE THE
PILOT RADIOED THAT HE WAS INBOUND. WHEN THE GLIDER
WAS ABOUT 1/4 OF A
MILE EAST OF THE FINISH LINE WITNESSES OBSERVED ITS
AIRSPEED APPEARED
TO BE LESS THAN NORMAL. AFTER CROSSING THE FINISH LINE
THE GLIDER
ENTERED INTO A CLIMBING RIGHT TURN. WHEN THE GLIDER
COMPLETED ABOUT A
180 DEGREE TURN, IT STALLED AND ENTERED INTO A SPIN.
A GLIDER PILOT WHO
OVERTOOK THE ACCIDENT GLIDER REPORTED THAT THE ACCIDENT
PILOT BEGAN TO
PREMATURELY DISPERSE HIS WATER BALLAST ABOUT 10 MILES
EAST OF THE
AIRPORT FINISH LINE.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines
the probable
cause(s) of this accident as follows:

THE PILOT'S IMPROPER DECISION TO EXECUTE THE RAPID
CLIMBING TURN
MANEUVER AT AN INSUFFICIENT AIRSPEED. CONTRIBUTING
TO THIS ACCIDENT WAS
THE PREMATURE DUMPING OF THE GLIDER'S WATER BALLAST.

4.
NYC00LA171
On June 19, 2000, about 1630 Eastern Daylight Time,
a Schempp-Hirth,
Ventus 2CM motorglider, N800PF, was substantially damaged
while
maneuvering to land at the Warren-Sugarbush Airport,
Warren, Vermont.
The certificated commercial pilot was seriously injured.
Visual
meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan
was filed for
the personal local flight conducted under 14 CFR Part
91.

According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector,
the pilot was
participating in a glider race at the airport. The
race was to be
conducted without motorized power and the motorglider
was towed to
altitude.

According to the pilot, after crossing the finish line
at the end of
the race, he received a radio call from the airport
that the winds had
changed direction and landings were being conducted
on Runway 22. The
pilot executed a 180-degree turn and entered the traffic
pattern for
the runway. While turning base to final, the pilot
was unable to stop
the turn with full opposite aileron due to turbulence.
As the
motorglider descended, the pilot was able to level
the wings, but was
90 degrees to the runway and 'into the trees.' The
pilot raised the
nose of the glider to decrease airspeed, and the motorglider
stalled,
impacting trees short of the runway.

The winds reported by an airport located about 13 miles
east of the
accident, at 1651, were from 350 degrees at 7 knots.



Two more, not contest participants, but fatalities
doing contest
finishes.

5.
NYC01FA071
HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On January 28, 2001, a Schempp-Hirth, Discus CS glider,
N814CU, was
substantially damaged while attempting to land at Wurtsboro
Airport,
Wurtsboro, New York. The certificated private pilot
was fatally
injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed
for the personal
flight. No flight plan had been filed for the local
flight conducted
under 14 CFR Part 91.
.....
The pilot performed a high-speed pass down runway 23,
and either
touched the runway momentarily, or was very close to
it. He then pulled
up to about 500 feet agl, and entered a left crosswind,
followed by a
downwind for runway 23. The traffic pattern appeared
normal to the
observers.

While on base leg, the glider was observed to enter
a left turn prior
to having reached a position from which the turn to
final would
normally have been made. The left turn increased in
bank angle, the
nose dropped and the glider disappeared from view.
Some of the
witnesses said the glider appeared slow and was in
a nose up attitude.
The bank angle was estimated to be in excess of 60
degrees, and the
nose down attitude at least 45 degrees.
...

6. This was on the rest day of 15 meter nationals

NTSB Identification: FTW01LA179.
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System
(DMS). Please
contact Public Inquiries
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, August 12, 2001 in Uvalde,
TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 2/20/2002
Aircraft: PDPS PZL-Bielsko SZD-55-1, registration:
N55VW
Injuries: 1 Fatal.
The commercial pilot was completing the third leg of
a soaring 300 km
triangle. The glider owner, who was in contact with
the pilot via
radio, reported that the pilot stated he had the field
in sight
approximately 8 miles from the airport. The glider
entered the traffic
pattern for runway 15 and was turning base when the
owner observed it
enter a spin. A witness reported that the glider banked,
'appeared to
have stalled, and spiraled counter-clockwise' in a
nose low attitude
into the ground. Another witness, located approximately
a block from
the accident site, stated that she 'looked up and saw
the glider
spinning counter clockwise very fast and falling nose
first.' The
glider impacted the ground and came to rest approximately
1/4 mile from
the approach end of runway. The pilot had accumulated
approximately 270
total glider flight hours and 5 flight hours in the
same make and model
as the accident aircraft. No pre-impact anomalies were
noted with the
glider during the examination.

(There was a low pass here too, though not mentioned
in the official
report. I guess pilots are smart enough not to talk
too much to the FAA
and NTSB!)


John Cochrane
BB



--

------------+
Mark J. Boyd

I'm in complete agreement. I don't fly contests, likely
never will, but I
sure *used* to enjoy the contest finishes.


I suppose this is a case of different strokes for different
folks...I watch these and think to myself ....'What's
the point?'...and have a particularly hard time explaining
the logic of this manuever to non-glider aviators.

But then I don't stare at teenagers burning rubber
either


What a shame they destroyed the
best part of contests for the spectators.

Like there are a.) any in the first place, and b.)
the few there are will now stop attending.

bumper
ZZ
Minden

Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are examples of
poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not related to
judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even contest
flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if there
were a midair at the gate.

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Kilo Charlie wrote:
Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are examples of
poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not related to
judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even contest
flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

So, stalling and spinning moments after what are clearly, in several
cases (including the most recent), botched gate finishes (i.e.,
insufficient energy) has absolutely nothing to do with the use of a
gate, while stalling and spinning at 600 feet while trying to sneak over
the edge of a finish cylinder, proves that cylinder finishes are
dangerous?

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if there
were a midair at the gate.

You've got it! I can choose not to finish at 50 feet, but I have no
control over the potential for a midair. I have had trouble several
times with having to land between gliders crossing my base leg low and
fast on their way to the finish gate. There was also the time someone
cut me off at the gate, by hooking it 100 feet in front of me. Maybe I
missed the finish calls, or maybe they didn't make them, it really
doesn't matter. Poor judgment and bad luck may well equal two dead
contest pilots one of these days.

The bottom line is this, whoever is fastest with a 50 foot gate, is also
going to be fastest with a 500 foot cylinder. So, why do some insist
upon trying to force use of a "fun" finish procedure that quite a few of
us find dangerous? As far as I'm concerned, if even one participant
objects, a gate shouldn't be used (and, yes, I have objected, and have
been overruled). If everyone agrees, have a good time...

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Yeah, what a silly thing to do...

Marc

I was afraid we might go a whole year without a finish
height debate - Wheee!

9B

At 05:30 11 March 2005, Marc Ramsey wrote:
Kilo Charlie wrote:
Every single one of these is a stall spin accident.
They are examples of
poor judgement and are not different than any other
stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that
this is not related to
judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some
are not even contest
flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates
at all.

So, stalling and spinning moments after what are clearly,
in several
cases (including the most recent), botched gate finishes
(i.e.,
insufficient energy) has absolutely nothing to do with
the use of a
gate, while stalling and spinning at 600 feet while
trying to sneak over
the edge of a finish cylinder, proves that cylinder
finishes are
dangerous?

An example of an accident that is related to the finish
gate is if there
were a midair at the gate.

You've got it! I can choose not to finish at 50 feet,
but I have no
control over the potential for a midair. I have had
trouble several
times with having to land between gliders crossing
my base leg low and
fast on their way to the finish gate. There was also
the time someone
cut me off at the gate, by hooking it 100 feet in front
of me. Maybe I
missed the finish calls, or maybe they didn't make
them, it really
doesn't matter. Poor judgment and bad luck may well
equal two dead
contest pilots one of these days.

The bottom line is this, whoever is fastest with a
50 foot gate, is also
going to be fastest with a 500 foot cylinder. So,
why do some insist
upon trying to force use of a 'fun' finish procedure
that quite a few of
us find dangerous? As far as I'm concerned, if even
one participant
objects, a gate shouldn't be used (and, yes, I have
objected, and have
been overruled). If everyone agrees, have a good time...

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good
judgement.

Yeah, what a silly thing to do...

Marc

I agree with Casey... but I'd rephrase it in a less politically correct
way:

There are some pilots who train for a racing environment and many who
don't. No surprise then that the latter are incompetent in some of the
basic skills of racing. Like taking off with water, centering thermals,
gaggle etiquette, and finishing. As finishes are highly regulated (a
requirement for safety), one way to short cut ignorance is to change
them into something we can all do. LCD. The inertia of ignorance and
lassitude will always overcome skill and enthusiasm (sadly, by shear
force of numbers).

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished by
skillful pilots exercising good judgement. There IS unbounded risk in
any maneuver attempted by pilots who take the environment too lightly.
If you don't want to improve your skills, why compete? That's the point
of it, after all. To compare yourself to others... to enter into a
rivalry. When you meet someone better, you tip your hat to his or her
skills and accomplishments, then redouble your efforts to improve your
own. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, stop competing and
start attending soaring camps. They're fun too.

And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed to
do that. If I thought that the finish line was inherently dangerous,
I'd be up there with you. God knows I do my level best to keep a good
distance between me and the prestart gaggle -- whenever I can. Now if
you want to improve safety, put some effort into that!

Kilo Charlie wrote:
Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are
examples of
poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not
related to
judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even
contest
flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if
there
were a midair at the gate.

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

I'm kinda new at this, but here's my two cents worth. There is an
advantage to a finish line that we don't see with a cylinder finish.
Everyone is funneled through a fairly precise point so we know where to
look for traffic and we have a fairly good idea how their pattern to
land will look. In a cylinder finish, all bets are off and every type
of pattern entry known to man from every possible direction is
accomplished along with often unpredictable results, this is especially
bad during a MAT or when different classes are finishing from different
directions. There are ways to solve this but it makes things more
complicated than a simple finish line.

FM


remove nospam to reply

wrote:
I agree with Casey... but I'd rephrase it in a less politically correct
way:

There are some pilots who train for a racing environment and many who
don't. No surprise then that the latter are incompetent in some of the
basic skills of racing. Like taking off with water, centering thermals,
gaggle etiquette, and finishing. As finishes are highly regulated (a
requirement for safety), one way to short cut ignorance is to change
them into something we can all do. LCD. The inertia of ignorance and
lassitude will always overcome skill and enthusiasm (sadly, by shear
force of numbers).

There is nothing inherently dangerous in a line finish accomplished by
skillful pilots exercising good judgement. There IS unbounded risk in
any maneuver attempted by pilots who take the environment too lightly.
If you don't want to improve your skills, why compete? That's the point
of it, after all. To compare yourself to others... to enter into a
rivalry. When you meet someone better, you tip your hat to his or her
skills and accomplishments, then redouble your efforts to improve your
own. If that doesn't sound like your cup of tea, stop competing and
start attending soaring camps. They're fun too.

And, of course, there's the simplest solution of all. If you have to
race, but don't like finish lines, then finish high. You are allowed to
do that. If I thought that the finish line was inherently dangerous,
I'd be up there with you. God knows I do my level best to keep a good
distance between me and the prestart gaggle -- whenever I can. Now if
you want to improve safety, put some effort into that!

Kilo Charlie wrote:

Every single one of these is a stall spin accident. They are

examples of

poor judgement and are not different than any other stall spin
accident....e.g. from base to final. To suggest that this is not

related to

judgement but to the gate is a huge stretch. Some are not even

contest

flights and are therefore unrelated to finish gates at all.

An example of an accident that is related to the finish gate is if

there

were a midair at the gate.

So it brings back to attempting to legislate good judgement.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix