Hard Deck

I see a number of issues he

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

I really enjoy your frequent op-eds in the WSJ and elsewhere - especially when you discuss the fact that you can't regulate against stupidity. Perhaps thats the best path to take with soaring as well...

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:01:01 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.

The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.

Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.

These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.

Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.

Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.

Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.

John Cochrane

Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

I think the Hard Deck is pretty much done - I think everyone wants safe flying - but getting it is more than a Hard deck can deliver.

I am not so sure the argument that more pilots would race..... even if it were much more safe (as safe as getting high off the ground with no engine can be)

But I think we all have to realize that the majority of people who enjoy sports do not enjoy competition. Most skiers do not race - most kayak paddlers do not race....... on and on.

I think is our obligation to Soaring to provide access and share our passion - it is all you can ask - I do not think the Hard Deck rule has any impact. Most of the impact I have had has come from listening to Soaring pilots - We don't need to Bully, but we do need to communicate and validate more.

If we're serious about changing behavior.

We will all say we have a hard deck that is pretty high (500+) - let's make it a practice to look at some logs and see how we're really doing. Maybe look at some other thing we all agree we do. Like circling the right direction, passing on the correct side on a ridge day or not pointing our glider at any one whlie flying...

WH

On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 4:24:22 PM UTC-5, Kevin Christner wrote:
Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

yeah, i'd like to see a SUA hard deck file that works for any of new york state... we land on the high ground, we land in the valleys. we also ridge soar 700 feet above the valley floor to make saves. there is no practical way to make a SUA file for Mifflin, Harris hill, blairstown, new hampshire, VT et cetera. the terrain is far too complex. maybe for a place like TSA, Hobbs, Ceasar Creek, or perry, you could implement it, but there are just too many places where you can be thermalling within proximity of higher terrain, while maintaining a good altitude margin above the surrounding area. google Mount pisgah in PA, and imagine a low save 500 feet above the peak of that mountain. there's just no way to make it sensical in areas of complex terrain.

Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice. I

2) This is one more thing that will cause people to be staring in the cockpit instead of outside. Spending time looking at computers WILL lead to not spending time looking at potential landing sites. This WILL lead to accidents that would otherwise not occur. The question is will the hard deck prevent more accidents than it will cause. This is a question that would likely take 10 years of data to analyze. In the meantime the rule may cause more deaths than it prevents.

JC: I love this old saw, it comes back again and again. We have to ban GPS, pilots will just be looking at their computers all the time! Dear friend, if you're down at 550 feet and you're looking slavishly at the pressure altitude on your flight recorder, you have a screw loose. Anyway, it's just one number. And every flight recorder has an audio warning of airspace violation. If at 550 feet you hear "ding! airspace" and you have to look down to wonder if you might be about to hit Class A, you have another screw loose.

3) The rule will penalize perfectly safe flying. I remember a 60 mile glide in dead air coming back to Mifflin while in the back seat of KS. Detoured to Jacks a few miles west of the airport and arrived about half way up the ridge (250ft+/-). Minimum sink speed and on top of the ridge in 30 seconds, home for the day win. If the SUA had a 300ft hard deck in the valley we would have crossed under it on the way to the ridge save. Result - landout.

JC: treated many times before. Again, not a logical argument against trying it at flatland sites. Already stated that in a mifflin situation you carve a hole for ridge flying.

Undoubtedly you have other reasons not to want to do it, but these are not logical ones.

John cochrane

Please qualify? Has it really, or is it the late field selection associated
with the below statement that has caused the crashes?

Low i.e. 500ft agl above a good pre-selected field, by an experienced pilot
in an aircraft they are familiar with is not unreasonable.

500ft having not considered the options and planned a field landing would
not be safe.

At 22:00 26 January 2018, John Cochrane wrote:


The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose
is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led
to
many crashes.

John Cochrane

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:01:01 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.

The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.

Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.

These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.

Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.

Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.

Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.

John Cochrane


why do i get that same creepy big brother feeling every time john proposes something. i feel like the hard deck would do exactly what government does sometimes. trying to protect everyone all the time by imposing increasingly restricting laws is not the answer.

i attempted a circle at 600 feet over luscombe acres (TSA) once . when the lift just wasnt solid enough i used good sense, hung it up and landed safely. we don't need a hard deck if everyone would stick to reasonable personal minimums.

you can't fix stupid though. have you considered this: some people might even continue to try and thermal after getting landed out by the hard deck to keep their expensive craft out of a field. i know under the right circumstances i would if i thought i could get away safely and avoid a retrieve.

so what are we trying to solve here? pressure to do stupid stuff by contest points to be had? people don't only thermal low because they're pressured by contest points. they also don't want to have to deal with a retrieve, and they wanna keep their shiny toy out of a potentially damaging field. it's why people buy sustainers. you cant save everyone. this is aviation, people need to rely on their own skill and sound decision making in the moment to stay safe, wherever and however they are able. for mountain and ridge site the hard deck is a nightmare and doesn't cover all risks. there's no way to design it that covers all phases of flight within proximity of terrain without fundamentally ruining the way that sort of flying is done. see andy blackburn's comments about ridges less than 500 feet high. you make whole ridges unflyable. look at may 23rd 2006 sports class nationals at mifflin. Liz S and i flew the ridge just north of shamokin, and it's top is 400 feet about the valley floor in many spots.

i used to love the finish line. as a kid i'd watch the gliders pass 30 feet overhead dumping water on me and the uvalde ramp. the temporary relief from the heat, and the excitement of watching such a magnificent craft skate just overhead was pure magic. I swear to god if you taint mifflin....

And if you can't fix people cirlcing within proximity of a mountain face, why endeavor to eliminate circle down near the valley floor. i guarantee more accidents happen high up along mountain faces where the proposed hard deck isn't in effect.

i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to stop.

ND

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:14:55 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:

i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to stop.

ND

Andy,

John (and Jon) have been quite explicit: They don't give a f@#& about your safety or your behavior. They care that you cannot get any speed points for doing something they don't approve of. Big difference.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:32:56 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:14:55 PM UTC-5, ND wrote:

i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to stop.

ND

Andy,

John (and Jon) have been quite explicit: They don't give a f@#& about your safety or your behavior. They care that you cannot get any speed points for doing something they don't approve of. Big difference.

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8

That is exactly right. Except for the "they don't approve of" part. It should be "the consensus doesn't approve of". The question - other than the technical implementation issues (and necessarily prior to it) - is "what is the consensus for acceptable behavior?". This appears to be the main point of contention. It appears that the consensus here is that circling at 300 ft is acceptable, and therefore should be legal in competition. If that is the broad consensus, I'm OK with that, even if it means I may be less competitive, or I vote with my feet.

Don't kid yourself that this isn't reward for risk though. In JJ's story, he got a landout and the other guy got away, probably with 300 more points. Extending this further, what if the bump was at 200'? 100'? The rules committee has to decide that some things are not acceptable, or that anything goes as long as the pilot lives through it. One of the consequences is that many mainstream pilots consider racing to be too risky to participate. I can think offhand of about 10 pilots just at my local glider port who cite this as the primary reason they do not. Not a single one mentions complexity of the rules.

Crashes are never a binary thing: below 300 ft you crash, above that you don't. Rather, below 300' your probability of crashing is higher than above 300' for everyone; and a pilot very experienced as circling below 300' is less likely to crash than one inexperienced at it. Perhaps to gain that experience he had to crash a few times, or at least buy an underwear store. Does anyone know an instructor who will take them out in a two seat to teach circling below 300'? Why not, if it is perfectly safe? I know about 10 CFIGs in the area, not a single one would consider it.

I assumed that there would be a maximum acceptable risk for competition, and that if it could be enforced by rules, this would be fair for everyone and increase participation - unless the skill of circling below 300 ft without crashing is a key skill that we are trying to measure. It appears that among the participants in this discussion (which are a very small minority of the racing community, and a minuscule minority of the soaring community) there is no stomach for this. In maintaining the status quo, you may also be maintaining the currently continuous shrinking trend of the sport.

Thanks, it was time to start a proper threa[d]. Let me put out a concrete
proposal so we know what we're talking about.

The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose
is to remove the points incentive for very low thermalling, which has led
to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives
for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over
unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.

proposal snipped...

Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We
just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We
may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a
competitive necessity and temptation.

why do i get that same creepy big brother feeling every time john proposes
something. i feel like the hard deck would do exactly what government does
sometimes. trying to protect everyone all the time by imposing increasingly
restricting laws is not the answer.

personal in-cockpit contest anecdote snipped...

you can't fix stupid though. have you considered this: some people might
even continue to try and thermal after getting landed out by the hard deck
to keep their expensive craft out of a field. i know under the right
circumstances i would if i thought i could get away safely and avoid a
retrieve.

so what are we trying to solve here? pressure to do stupid stuff by contest
points to be had? people don't only thermal low because they're pressured
by contest points. they also don't want to have to deal with a retrieve,
and they wanna keep their shiny toy out of a potentially damaging field.
it's why people buy sustainers. you cant save everyone. this is aviation,
people need to rely on their own skill and sound decision making in the
moment to stay safe, wherever and however they are able. for mountain and
ridge site the hard deck is a nightmare and doesn't cover all risks.
there's no way to design it that covers all phases of flight within
proximity of terrain without fundamentally ruining the way that sort of
flying is done. see [9B's] comments about ridges less than 500
feet high. you make whole ridges unflyable. look at may 23rd 2006 sports
class nationals at mifflin. Liz S and i flew the ridge just north of
shamokin, and it's top is 400 feet about the valley floor in many spots.

i used to love the finish line. as a kid i'd watch the gliders pass 30 feet
overhead dumping water on me and the uvalde ramp. the temporary relief from
the heat, and the excitement of watching such a magnificent craft skate
just overhead was pure magic. I swear to god if you taint mifflin....

And if you can't fix people cirlcing within proximity of a mountain face,
why endeavor to eliminate circle down near the valley floor. i guarantee
more accidents happen high up along mountain faces where the proposed hard
deck isn't in effect.

i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will
improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to
stop.

I tried to stay off my keyboard here, I really did, because - as I've noted
elsewhere - I've no skin in the contest-specific game. But as a sailplane
pilot with skin in the USA (not SUA, wry pedantic "clarification" noted)
*soaring* game, I feel the need to add my "+1"!!!

I, too, understand what BB is saying, and why he's tossed it out for
discussion. What I don't really understand is why the heartfelt apparent
non-acceptance of a "market solution" - i.e. non-rules-based approach - in
this particular instance. Perfection never being an option in human affairs,
identifying where "common sense ends" and "slippery slopes begin" is (choose
what applies & feel free to add your own): not an exact science; individual
judgment; an academic exercise; etc.

Color me genuinely perplexed and somewhat baffled by the "Proper Rules Can
Universally Fix Everything" school of thought...whether it be in soaring or
(gasp) government (at every level). Once "a generally acceptable minimum" of
rules exist, go play, live life, man up to your actions (both as an individual
and as a society), be personally accountable for your actions. The general
welfare of society will be enhanced, "unnecessary governance" will be minimized.

I'll go pretend I've taken my meds, now.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com