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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
500 foot rule and pilot opinion poll
Fellow US pilots:
This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says "stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field." But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article "Safer Finishes" in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....rs/#For_glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website – I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from "pilot judgment" decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it – I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove "but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points" from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
While I am not going to argue against higher finishes for certain classes, I
am going to make a strong argument against the 500-foot 2-mile donut. I will preface my remarks by saying that I am not a hot-shot contest pilot, but I enjoy flying in club contests and the occasional regional. I have always been very conservative on my final glides, even when I'm not flying over the notoriously unlandable terrain around my home field.. The 500-foot 2-mile donut was used at this year's Region 9, where I flew in Sports class. I have to say that I found it harder to judge this finish than any other. On every flight, I found myself doing mental arithmetic, trying to figure out whether I was going to make the 500-foot limit, even though my flight computer said I had the field made with my usual conservative margins. The problem is not the 500-foot limit, but the 2-mile donut. My flight computer cannot computer the height required to make this type of finish. I suspect many others can't either. The result is that the new rule puts extra workload on the pilot during the busy final glide when he or she should be concentrating on other things. I found it to be a great distraction and did not give me any feeling of improved safety. Whatever the finish altitude is deemed to be safe, it should apply to the standard finish gate. Finishing 2 miles out makes no sense to me and makes the final glide more complex than it should be. I should also add that, on a couple of days, after making the 2-mile finish at Hobbs, I was now approachingt the field at a couple of hundred feet in the opposite direction from standard and 15-m classes. Sorry, I.m not convinced! Mike ASW 20 WA "John Cochrane" wrote in message om... Fellow US pilots: This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says "stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field." But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article "Safer Finishes" in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....rs/#For_glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from "pilot judgment" decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove "but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points" from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"John Cochrane" wrote... Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. ... The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. I hate to sound like one of those libertarians, but I have to say this proposed rule goes too far. I defend the right of every contest pilot to find new and creative ways to kill themselves, where I draw the line is when they threaten to take me along with them. I'm fully capable of making my own decisions as to how high to finish, and whether I'd be better off landing in a good field. The problem I have with low altitude finishes (particularly with MATs) is that once I finish, even at a comfortable altitude, I then have to contend with the possibility of gliders coming in fast and low from various directions. I have enough trouble landing safely on my own, I can do without the extra distraction caused by a near miss. A rule requiring 500 feet at the edge of the finish cylinder, and a reasonable penalty for a rolling finish, pretty much eliminates this problem. Messing with donuts and taking away speed points for coming up short is probably only going to result in rebellion... Marc |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
In article , bmaclean2
@cox.net says... I take great exception with your paragraph that starts "Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation." Actually, the great majority of contest pilots NEVER find themselves in that situation. Ever. If this has been a problem for you, I think you need to rethink your strategies. How did you determine the "great majority of contest pilots NEVER find themselves in that situation"? My personal experience, and discussing contest days with the other contestants over 25 years, is that most pilots will find themselves in that situation at least once, and frequently several times during their contest career. It is particularly likely to happen during a contest with poor weather, or where the contest airport weather routinely dies early. It is less likely at areas like Minden, where the final glide starting height is "enforced" by mountains like the Pine Nuts. Regardless, I'm not sure if I'm in favor of this rule, but I wouldn't mind trying it. I see no problem managing it with my glide calculator. -- !Replace DECIMAL.POINT in my e-mail address with just a . to reply directly Eric Greenwell Richland, WA (USA) |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
John Boy,
Your trying to kill a gnat with a sledge hammer. I have been to many contests with a 500 foot finish rule. This years standard nats at Montague had a 500 foot finish gate. What was the price to pay for not making it? One minute per 100 feet low was added to to your time. Now that's an appropriate penalty. Your *distance only* penalty is like shooting somebody for shoplifting. While I got you on the horn, your +15 minute thing is supposed to make things fairer for the guys that dont have fancy computers that give an ETA. Well guess what? Everybody is smart enough to make sure they get home 15 minutes late. All you have succeeded in doing is to add 15 minutes to all optional tasks. It's kind'a like the railroad that discovered a majority of accidents involved the caboose being hit by another train. Their solution was to remove all cabooses. Sounds like adding 15 minutes doesn't it? JJ Sinclair |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness
of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap it and at what level of competition. If the intent is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical, empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track the bigger objectives. 9B At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote: We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle doesn't pay much attention to rules anyway. John Cochrane wrote: Fellow US pilots: This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article 'Safer Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....ch/Papers/#For _glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website – I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from 'pilot judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it – I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points' from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Sorry, but the comment "Actually, the great majority of contest pilots
NEVER find themselves in that situation." is just plain wrong. Most of the guys I fly with have been there more than once, in many seasons. Not to mention me. If you are trying to go fast and/or you fly in weak weather, you WILL find yourself in this situation. Best Regards, Dave "BMacLean" wrote in message ... I find it very offensive the way you use scare tactics and play on people's emotions to get this rule voted in. This post will succeed in discouraging new contest pilots. I take great exception with your paragraph that starts "Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation." Actually, the great majority of contest pilots NEVER find themselves in that situation. Ever. If this has been a problem for you, I think you need to rethink your strategies. Barb MacLean |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Somehow, John, I feel that your posting should have ended with the word
"vote". Perhaps a member of the rules committee should not be 'campaigning' to shame/scare us into our "opinions". Personally, I think the 15minute rule, and this rule, are unnecessary complications to an already overly -complicated sport. It takes a season of flying just to get used to the new rules! And then next year, guess what? New rules! John Bojack "J4" This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says "stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field." But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article "Safer Finishes" in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....rs/#For_glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from "pilot judgment" decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove "but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points" from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Hi,
This discussion is very interesting. I applaud John for his efforts to make sailplane racing safer. I agree with the theory that if we just move the playing field up 500 feet, it will dramatically improve safety. It is my impression that is what he is trying to do. Why is that so bad? I also agree that I'd prefer to have fewer rules, but in this case I must lean toward safety over simplicity. I must admit that I am a pilot with 2 young children and I will vote for anything that will allow me to continue to fly contests with less reason to worry that I'll leave my kids without a father or my wife without her husband. I must also admit that I am a relatively inexperienced contest pilot - having flown in only 4 contests. Fly Safe, Paul Remde "Andy Blackburn" wrote in message ... I will be interested to see how we measure the effectiveness of the rule in meeting its stated purpose -- should it be approved on a trial basis -- and how that information will be used in determining whether to keep it or scrap it and at what level of competition. If the intent is to put it in on a trial basis, and, if pilots don't object en masse, to roll it out permanently, then I'm against it even on a trial basis. With out a critical, empirical filter on adding complexity to the rules I think it's a recipe for incrementally obfuscating the rules over time -- to the point that we lose track the bigger objectives. 9B At 19:36 16 September 2003, Mark Zivley wrote: We need fewer rules in general. The Darwin principle doesn't pay much attention to rules anyway. John Cochrane wrote: Fellow US pilots: This year's SRA pilot poll will be on line in a few days. It contains a question on the 500 foot rule. I urge you to read it, think about it, and vote. In particular, this is a rule that benefits newer, less experienced pilots. It doesn't matter much to the top 5 national and world group, many of whom hate the idea. If you like this idea for your contests, you have to voice your opinion. Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude. Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation, 5-7 miles out at MacCready 0 plus 50 feet. Or maybe minus 50 feet. You're passing over the last good field, and the last chance to properly evaluate a field, do a pattern, look for wires, etc. From here on in, if you don't make it, it's straight in to whatever you find. Common sense says 'stop, look for a thermal, and land in this good field.' But the contest is on the line; 400 points and more call you to try to pop it in over the fence. This is not fun. It's not safe. And it's entirely a creation of the rules. The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles out, do that. Forget the race. This proposal is tantamount to moving the airport up 500 feet. The race is entirely unaffected. A race with the airport located 500 feet above the surrounding terrain is just as valid, just as fun, and just as challenging. The rule is only suggested for regionals, and perhaps only sports class. It will have to have substantial support from pilots before it makes it to nationals. For more details, including accident statistics, see my article 'Safer Finishes' in the October 2002 Soaring. It's also online at my website, http://gsbwww.uchicago.edu/fac/john....ch/Papers/#For _glider I will also keep updated versions of this message on the website - I'm sure to hear more objections that I can answer in the FAQ FAQ: 1. We should leave this to pilot judgment. We'll never substitute for pilot judgment, and handling the Mc 0 + 50 feet situation will still take lots of judgment. There is plenty of precedent for rules that remove from 'pilot judgment' decisions that pit safety vs. competitive advantage. We used to leave gross weight to pilot judgment. Now we impose weight limits, and drag scales around to contests. We used to leave the question whether you can relight after a landout to pilot judgment. Now we ban the practice. We ban cloud flying instruments. And so forth. Making a low final glide is a maneuver that requires extensive experience and judgment. While there is a good case that national level pilots can be expected to have this judgment, this is not the case for regionals, and especially sports-class regionals, which are explicitly aimed at newer, less experienced pilots. 2. I love the low pass finish. Don't take all the fun away This proposal does not eliminate the fun low pass. The actual finish can still take place over a line, at the usual altitude. Many pilots think they will end up too high for a proper low finish, but that is a mistake. If you pass one mile out at 500 feet and 80 kts, you will pass the finish at 50 feet well below redline. It takes more than 500 feet just to gain the extra speed. Try it - I have. 3. This will lead to unintended consequences that are even worse. a) Pulling up over the line. Several pilots complained that a 500 foot finish would lead to pilots racing in at 200 feet and then popping over the line. Good point. That's why the proposal is now that you must be over 500 feet for the whole distance between mile 1 and mile 2. (It is treated like special use airspace). Now the optimal thing to do is stay above 500 feet the whole way. b) Traffic problems. Perhaps people thermaling at 400 feet just outside the line will interefere with finishing traffic. Not likely, as this does not happen now, and all we've done is move the whole business up 500 feet. But moving from a circle to a donut will further separate finishers from thermalers, as it eliminates finishers below 500 feet counting on popping up at the last moment. c) Heads-down Experience with the current 500 foot finish in sports class has not revealed a big heads-down problem. Set your GPS to finish over the airport at 500 feet. That gives you a 150 foot or so margin over the donut. 4. This isn't the number one problem. It isn't. Off field landings and terrain impact are still the number one problems. Crashes near the airport and from low energy finish are in the US a distant third. Sailplane safety does not consist of only attacking the number one problem. You each problem as a solution comes. Midairs are not the number one problem, yet we all wear parachutes and look around, and avoiding midairs is a central concern of all rule making. Assembly errors are not the number one problem, yet we all do checks and the rules now require them. If we can improve the #99 problem, at no cost to the validity or fun of the race, soaring gets a little bit safer. 5. OK, I see that a high finish is a good idea, but losing all speed points seems awfully harsh. Can't we just tack on a 5 minute penalty or something? The key is not the finish, the key is how this looks 5 miles out when the pilot is passing the last good field. The whole point is to remove 'but if I squeak it in, I'll get all those speed points' from the mental calculation. The only way to do this is to give essentially the same points for landing 5 miles out as for squeaking it in to the airport. 6. Soaring needs a little danger. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. Several pilots have forcefully stated this opinion. If you think that physical danger and an occasional fatality are important to keep soaring exiting, vote against this rule. Disclaimer: All of this is entirely my own opinion and has no connection with the rules committee. John Cochrane (BB) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Okay, I get it!
However, Cochrane said that it's really for the new pilots and not the top pilots anyway. Since I'm in that beginner intermediate contest pilot group, I can assure you that our problem is not arriving back too low, it's arriving back with way too much altitude. If new pilots are trying to do things beyond their capabilities, a 500' finish isn't going to protect them. Barb "Dave Nadler "YO"" wrote in message ... Sorry, but the comment "Actually, the great majority of contest pilots NEVER find themselves in that situation." is just plain wrong. Most of the guys I fly with have been there more than once, in many seasons. Not to mention me. If you are trying to go fast and/or you fly in weak weather, you WILL find yourself in this situation. Best Regards, Dave "BMacLean" wrote in message ... I find it very offensive the way you use scare tactics and play on people's emotions to get this rule voted in. This post will succeed in discouraging new contest pilots. I take great exception with your paragraph that starts "Why? Sooner or later, you will find yourself in that awful situation." Actually, the great majority of contest pilots NEVER find themselves in that situation. Ever. If this has been a problem for you, I think you need to rethink your strategies. Barb MacLean |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NTSB: USAF included? | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 10 | September 11th 05 10:33 AM |
Can a Private Pilot tow gliders and get paid? | zatatime | Piloting | 3 | October 17th 04 01:35 AM |
FAA has temporarily withdrawn the proposed Sport Pilot rule | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 2 | March 27th 04 06:23 AM |
The Internet public meeting on National Air Tour Standards begins Feb. 23 at 9 a.m. | Larry Dighera | Piloting | 0 | February 22nd 04 03:58 PM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |