A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Hard Deck



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old January 29th 18, 08:14 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
ND
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 314
Default Hard Deck

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
  #62  
Old January 29th 18, 08:23 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:36:35 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002
Another contest site example.......


Hey Charlie: The finish cylinder minimum for 2018 is now 800 over the airport / 1 mi. It's been at least 500 / 1 mi for a decade. What was exciting for you was too exciting for organizers (heavily influenced by others that weren't able to offset bad judgement with good luck).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8
  #63  
Old January 29th 18, 08:32 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Hard Deck

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
  #64  
Old January 29th 18, 08:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Jonathan St. Cloud
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,463
Default Hard Deck

Golly, I thought at the 2017 18 meter nationals, they had a 50 ft finish line?

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:23:21 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:36:35 PM UTC-5, Charlie M. (UH & 002
Another contest site example.......


Hey Charlie: The finish cylinder minimum for 2018 is now 800 over the airport / 1 mi. It's been at least 500 / 1 mi for a decade. What was exciting for you was too exciting for organizers (heavily influenced by others that weren't able to offset bad judgement with good luck).

best,
Evan Ludeman / T8


  #65  
Old January 29th 18, 09:00 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tango Eight
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 962
Default Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 2:45:41 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Golly, I thought at the 2017 18 meter nationals, they had a 50 ft finish line?


Any contest that includes a sports class has to use a finish ring with the designated minimum. The finish line still puts in an occasional guest appearance at Nats.

T8
  #66  
Old January 29th 18, 09:02 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Hard Deck

Tanks for the reply.

As stated, not trying to justify, just stating a possible case where a blanket hard deck could do unintentional landouts.
  #67  
Old January 29th 18, 09:03 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Hard Deck


A few safety notes from SK point of view:

http://www.opensoaring.com/sebastian...8-in-vitacura/
  #68  
Old January 29th 18, 09:04 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default Hard Deck

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

  #69  
Old January 29th 18, 09:13 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,383
Default Hard Deck

Agreed, my second hospital landing was prefaced by a "glide" I never wanted to do in the first part, absolutely never want me, or others, to do again.
You know the site and that route.
I think you were there for both my lawn landings.
A rusty pilot may have broken something on my second one.
I am all for trying to keep things safe, but there becomes a fine line in certain situations where it is "sorta OK" for one and a statistic for another.

I remember a "squirrel" that landed south at HHSC in a fairly new ASW-24, didn't have enough brake (really!?!?) to stop on the pavement, watched him go over the backside of the hill!
Glad he didn't hit trailers parked down there.
Peeps like that can't land in middling sized field let alone an airport.

The question is, at what level of competence do we write rules for?
Is it different for a regional vs. a nationals?
The possible assumption being that Nats is a higher level. On the other hand, with declining participation in contests, the minimums to get in may be lowered so the site can "maybe" break even.

Sorta screwed one way or another.
  #70  
Old January 29th 18, 09:49 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Andy Blackburn[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 608
Default Hard Deck

I sort of had a different version on all of this.

Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.

Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.

Andy Blackburn
9B
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The Melting Deck Plates Muddle - V-22 on LHD deck.... Mike Naval Aviation 79 December 14th 09 07:00 PM
hard wax application Tuno Soaring 20 April 24th 08 03:04 PM
winter is hard. Bruce Greef Soaring 2 July 3rd 06 06:31 AM
It ain't that hard Gregg Ballou Soaring 8 March 23rd 05 02:18 AM
Who says flying is hard? Roger Long Piloting 9 November 1st 04 09:57 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.