If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Andy,
You point out many of the unknowns that concern me, while advocates are taking a "don't worry, be happy" approach to addressing them. I keep looking for the "name" that characterizes what I think of the cylinder... You've helped me find it. "The three monkeys finish" |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
OC, Your pessimistic approach to the finish cylinder
makes me wonder just how many times you have flown it? I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese, Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter? JJ At 12:00 24 March 2005, wrote: Andy, You point out many of the unknowns that concern me, while advocates are taking a 'don't worry, be happy' approach to addressing them. I keep looking for the 'name' that characterizes what I think of the cylinder... You've helped me find it. 'The three monkeys finish' |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
At 15:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese, Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter? I had two problems at Parowan that were manageable, but gave me pause because they could have been worse. - Six gliders entering the downwind at once. Because the finish is totally unmanaged, gliders tend to finish in one sequence, but enter the pattern in a different sequence several minutes later. In my case it lead to some maneuvering low on base leg. - At the cylinder edge, doing 130-140kts I pick up out of the corner of my eye another competitor on a perpendicular course with divebrakes full open flying right at me. I doubt he could see me because he was nose-high and decending rapidly. I don't want to be as wuss, because I don't feel particularly at risk finishing under any system. I would observe that the times I have been most concerned flying are when I have encountered conflicting traffic that I wasn't aware of - someone entering a thermal improperly, reverse courselines on a flat triangle, etc. Under any finish scheme, the airport is going to be a high-traffic area. The real question is will I know where the traffic is or not? I've done my share of wingtip-to-wingtip finishes - hooking the gate and everything. But I always knew where everyone was because our courses slowly converged over 10, 15, 20 miles. Not so with the cylinder. Some of the culprit here is the new tasking - this can't happen in a MAT unless you put a steering turn in, and TATs spread pilots out too, but some of the problem is the nature of the cylinder where people don't always behave in preditcable ways at the line, probably because they don't have to. On the energy question, I suspect this represents 100% of JJ's accidents (BTW JJ - you did a nice job speculating what may have happened in one case. I for one would like to hear the particulars on the other 4 when you get your energy back). The conventional wisdom is that a higher finish line will be safer. My speculation is that we are trading old problems for new ones - only time will tell. The old problem is someone, tired and dehydrated, who finishes at 50' and 90 knots. The new problem is someone, tired and dehydrated, who finishes at 500', 1 mile out and 50 knots then drifts towards the airport. Both end up at some sort of confused 'pattern' entry with about 300'. Then we've added a new problem of people who mijudge the glide and find they need to climb to get to 500' - I can imagine all kinds of chaos coming out of that - apparently some has already. Of course there's no substitute for good judgement and vigilence - I'm a little concerned that people feel like the cylinder has absolved them of the need to stay on the ball while finishing. Hope that didn't cost me my hug. 9B |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
At 05:00 23 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote:
Andy, FAR 91.119c states that we are not allowed to fly within 500 feet of people, places or things, Except as necessary for takeoff and landing. If I find myself at or below 500 feet at the 1 mile cylinder, I am allowed to continue my descent to the field and make any appropriate pattern, including no pattern to complete my landing. I am not allowed to dive to within 500 feet at the edge of the cylinder if there is any people, places or things there. I don't think I need to restate what the low pass involves, but just how far is the gate crew from the finish line? 500 feet? In most cases that I have seen, the gate crew is sitting at the start of the finish line. Just one more reason to go exclusively with the finish cylinder. I think I've been pretty fair about recognizing some good arguments you've made. Honestly this one feels like splitting hairs because it tries to read the pilot's intent. Was he low for a 'fun' pass or because, as you say, 'I found myself at or below 500' '. The dive for the gate is no different than the dive for the cylinder IMHO, except one involves a straight line and one involves a curved line. If we're using GPS, why do we need a gate crew anyway? I still want that hug - maybe at Parowan we can have a ceremony. 9B |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Morning Andy,
I remember a busy day at Parowan, several finishers milling around. The guy I was most worried about was slope soaring the near by mountains and just waiting for things to clear out a bit. The problem comes from people that finish with excess altitude and that happens with either gate. Been working on 'Finish Gate Accident no. 2', but right now I got to go flying. Post frontal in the valley and Q's are a popping. Cheers, JJ At 17:30 24 March 2005, Andy Blackburn wrote: At 15:00 24 March 2005, John Sinclair wrote: I have found no real promlems in its use at Reese, Parowan, Minden, Montague & Ephrata. Where have you flown it and exactly what problems did you encounter? I had two problems at Parowan that were manageable, but gave me pause because they could have been worse. - Six gliders entering the downwind at once. Because the finish is totally unmanaged, gliders tend to finish in one sequence, but enter the pattern in a different sequence several minutes later. In my case it lead to some maneuvering low on base leg. - At the cylinder edge, doing 130-140kts I pick up out of the corner of my eye another competitor on a perpendicular course with divebrakes full open flying right at me. I doubt he could see me because he was nose-high and decending rapidly. I don't want to be as wuss, because I don't feel particularly at risk finishing under any system. I would observe that the times I have been most concerned flying are when I have encountered conflicting traffic that I wasn't aware of - someone entering a thermal improperly, reverse courselines on a flat triangle, etc. Under any finish scheme, the airport is going to be a high-traffic area. The real question is will I know where the traffic is or not? I've done my share of wingtip-to-wingtip finishes - hooking the gate and everything. But I always knew where everyone was because our courses slowly converged over 10, 15, 20 miles. Not so with the cylinder. Some of the culprit here is the new tasking - this can't happen in a MAT unless you put a steering turn in, and TATs spread pilots out too, but some of the problem is the nature of the cylinder where people don't always behave in preditcable ways at the line, probably because they don't have to. On the energy question, I suspect this represents 100% of JJ's accidents (BTW JJ - you did a nice job speculating what may have happened in one case. I for one would like to hear the particulars on the other 4 when you get your energy back). The conventional wisdom is that a higher finish line will be safer. My speculation is that we are trading old problems for new ones - only time will tell. The old problem is someone, tired and dehydrated, who finishes at 50' and 90 knots. The new problem is someone, tired and dehydrated, who finishes at 500', 1 mile out and 50 knots then drifts towards the airport. Both end up at some sort of confused 'pattern' entry with about 300'. Then we've added a new problem of people who mijudge the glide and find they need to climb to get to 500' - I can imagine all kinds of chaos coming out of that - apparently some has already. Of course there's no substitute for good judgement and vigilence - I'm a little concerned that people feel like the cylinder has absolved them of the need to stay on the ball while finishing. Hope that didn't cost me my hug. 9B |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Seniors Contest | Bob Fidler | Soaring | 68 | March 17th 05 03:50 AM |
Why does the Sporting code require "Goal" to be a finish point??? | Mark Zivley | Soaring | 31 | October 18th 04 10:31 PM |
TAT scoring question | Mark Zivley | Soaring | 34 | September 6th 04 04:55 AM |
Carbon Fiber - Achieving Glossy Finish w/o GelCoat | RKT | Home Built | 7 | March 8th 04 06:15 AM |
Start Anywhere Cylinder (SSA rules proposal) | Mark Navarre | Soaring | 15 | September 25th 03 01:13 PM |