Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

On 01/22/2014 3:31 PM, Dave Nadler wrote:
Perhaps you were absent when a pilot blew a final glide from
the North, and landed on a street in a housing development
close to the airport?

The pilot would have blown his final glide regardless unless you are
implying that a 500 foot cylinder 1 mile away from the airport would
have magically improves a gliders L/D... It doesn't matter whether we
are aiming for a point 50 feet AGL at the airport, 500 at 1 mile or 1200
at 4 miles we still have to calculate a proper final glide. I much
rather be aiming at the airport that I can see than some fictional point
in 3d space...

Luke

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 11:28:02 AM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.

Your proposal does mean that a pilot at, say 300' and 3 miles has 175 points to gain (depending on ground effect and length of the runway) for pressing on to try to cross the cylinder at 0-50' and making a straight in versus landing in a field while some sort of orderly approach and landing is possible. Read the 1-26 nationals report from last year for a description of how it works.

To be clear - there are a number of pilots who argue that finishing below pattern height should earn a heavy penalty, up to a zero for the day, because they create a hazard not just for themselves but for others when they do things like cut other gliders off in the pattern. Yes, there have been multiple complaints on this issue this year. Maybe that falls under the unsafe flying rule - but CDs don't generally want to be in that position - they argue for a firm definition of what's too low.

And there we are.

Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task.

Tim:

You're missing a basic point. When a finish cylinder is in effect, the task ends at the top of the finish cylinder, not at the home airport. "Making it home" does not mean "completing the task."

If you take off at the home airport and miss the start cylinder or start time, you do not get credit for completing the task, even though you took off at the same airport as everyone else and went around the same turnpoints. You may "feel" you should get credit, but you don't.

That's like saying you want credit for finishing a running race because, though you didn't go through the finish line with everyone else, you did make it to the locker room after the race.

Pilots may "feel" this way. I'm sure some pilots "felt" this way when rules were changed that you could not use your takeoff time rather than start time if you missed the gate. Sorry. The race is from start cylinder after start gate opens, through turnpoint cylinders, and to the finish cylinder. The start and finish cylinders have a maximum and minimum altitudes. That's the task, and where you land is pretty irrelevant to having completed the task.

Other pilots may "feel" that if they stopped in a half not rag to make it home at the finish height, it's unfair that some guy willing to bust his glider over the oil derrecks can still get speed points for floating in and pulling up over the fence.

Remember, all points are relative! To every pilot who gets ahead by squeaking in a low final glide for speed points, it is just the same as taking away points from the guys who don't do this stuff. If you're a competitive but also safety minded pilot, don't think about these structures as "how will they take points away from me." Think about it as "how will they keep some other guy from beating me by doing stupid stuff."

John Cochrane

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 3:56:06 PM UTC-5, Luke Szczepaniak wrote:
...It doesn't matter whether we
are aiming for a point 50 feet AGL at the airport, 500 at 1 mile...

For those of us flying gliders who don't lose 450 feet/mile,
it makes a large difference ;-)

I finally got to try a line finish in a contest at Hobbs last year. In
my opinion it is the safest option available.

Luke

The danger of inference from one data point. Click. Well, Russian Roulette must be safe.

As Dave said, one of our most safety minded pilots landed on a city street two miles out. A lot of the rest of us had no fun at all on a long wave suppressed liftless final glide -- and the huge incentive to squeak it in on the last day of a national. Take a look down sometime while you glide in to Hobbs at Mc 0 + 50 feet, and remember the crashes that have happened there.

John Cochrane

On 01/22/2014 4:08 PM, wrote:
The danger of inference from one data point. Click. Well, Russian Roulette must be safe.

You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I
normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.

Cheers,
Luke

You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I
normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.

Cheers,

Luke

It's a world of difference flying back to your own airport for fun vs. last day of nationals, lots of wind, no lift, you're in third place, you started at Mc 3 + 1000' but lost it all, and now you need to cross the oil derricks with MacCready 0 and 100 feet on the clock. The sirens will sing.

John Cochrane

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 2:28:02 PM UTC-5, Tim Taylor wrote:
On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 10:20:52 PM UTC-7, wrote:

On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 7:22:55 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:



How about this







1 mile finish ring at 500 Agl.







You miss it you get a 25 point penalty and -0.4 points per foot.







This would give a maximum of 225 points penalty. It gives plenty of incentive to stop and find lift.







Hi Tim,







Your proposal addresses the first objective of a minimum finish height/penalty, but not the second or third (see my earlier post). Maybe you are okay with that. The pilot survey (and this thread) reveals a wide range of views and preferences on the subject. There very well may be a better alternative out there, but with a bifurcated pilot population it will need to be something outside the box to bridge the gaps in what the community would like. This discussion has exposed some potential new elements and preferences that I personally think might be worthy of further development.







Andy



Andy,



You are correct, I think points two and three are not needed and are part of a socialist conspiracy to reduce the participation in sailplane racing. It is a perfect example of over regulation that is just not needed. The concerns raised are all ready covered by giving the CD the right to assess penalties for unsafe flying. All the rest is just part of the sport and racing.



Most racing pilots have clearly spoken that they feel it is fundamental unfair to make it home and not be given credit for completing the task. A simple rule that sets the minimum height (I prefer one mile and 500 feet, plenty of height to fly a pattern) and a gradated penalty to the ground where you still get speed points. It is simple and and meets the KISS rule. Anything more and we are back into convoluted rules.



If you personally feel you need more margins please fly them for yourselves but don't try to regulate the rest of us to fly by your minimums. Just because we can make a rules does not mean we need to.



Tim

+1

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 1:55:14 PM UTC-8, wrote:
You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I

normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.



Cheers,



Luke



It's a world of difference flying back to your own airport for fun vs. last day of nationals, lots of wind, no lift, you're in third place, you started at Mc 3 + 1000' but lost it all, and now you need to cross the oil derricks with MacCready 0 and 100 feet on the clock. The sirens will sing.



John Cochrane

John, sounds like an intense final glide. It also sounds like the pain was pretty evenly distributed among the contestants and brings up an interesting thought regarding the MFH cylinder discussion. Do you have an opinion (or calculated results) as to how a MFH cylinder might have influenced the results of that day?

The current rules allow the CD to set the MFH based on the site, so it appears to me that the flexibility is there to address many of the concerns expressed here without any rule changes.

Thanks,
Craig

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 4:55:14 PM UTC-5, wrote:
You presume that I haven't flown a line finish outside of contests. I

normally fly predeclared tasks with a line start and a line finish.



Cheers,



Luke



It's a world of difference flying back to your own airport for fun vs. last day of nationals, lots of wind, no lift, you're in third place, you started at Mc 3 + 1000' but lost it all, and now you need to cross the oil derricks with MacCready 0 and 100 feet on the clock. The sirens will sing.



John Cochrane

John, I don't think any reasonable person would continue faced with such adverse conditions. You are bringing an extreme example.

What about the same situation but a bit modified. A pilot had 1000 feet of safety and he lost it all arriving at the airport at 495 feet. Doesn't it feel silly to score him as a land out?

Should he instead land a mile earlier at a field? In your view it is not safe for him to continue? Such decision makes no sense. Obviously coming at 495 feet to the airport is much safer then landing in a field (most of the time).

You can't look at everything through extreme examples.