RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

John what reminder and what policy? I want to grasp what you are trying to convey. The reminder that trophies are tin?

I would add:

4. The paradigm of more rules=fewer opportunities for pilots with better skills to be rewarded for them.
5. Some pilots are [mostly] in agreement with the many rules changes that have reduced risk (I detailed 21 since I started flying contests in 1968) but they want to evaluate each new proposed change on a cost/benefit basis: the cost in terms of complications and restrictions on flying and perhaps even an impact on whether certain days are contest days vs. the potential benefit of fewer accidents.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 2:13:04 PM UTC-5, wrote:
This thread has been more interesting in getting a feel for the general mindset of competitors than it has in actually solving any safety issues.

I think for me it is revealing three very distinct modalities of thought..:
1. The paradigm of more rules=more safety.
2. The paradigm of more rules=fairer competition, eliminating points for risk takers.
3. Some guys just accept competition as it is, want to prevent any further curtailments of someone trying to define a flying style,and accept the resulting consequences both in contest standing and in contest risk.

Just popping in to say, consalances and prayers to family and friends of the pilot.
Rules issues SHOULD be in another thread..........
Period.......

Frikkin autocorrect is a PITA......

Charlie this thread morphed after about the third post. May not be appropriate here, but it has really been a good thoughtfull conversation bringing up many valid points, although I don't think we have any real concrete solution to the overall problem.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.

As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.

Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.

Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.

'guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush' I'm one of those guys. In a $4000 1-26 with a 30 knot stall that's one thing. In a $200K 18 meter, it's entirely different. I'm familiar with the area, having flown there for nearly 30 years.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 10:47:36 AM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Very interesting having a hard deck for a contest out of Truckee. What would the hard deck be on the Pine Nuts coming home?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 9:34:58 AM UTC-8, wrote:
If your desire is to not have to compete with "fools", good luck, there will always be idiots that you will have to compete with. Some may not be "idiots" in the classic sense but they may seem "idiotic" in that they fly differently than you do, and have a different set of soaring values and self imposed limitations. Once again, if thats what you want , an idiotless contest, condor is where you need to be.

As for setting a hard deck such that a guy always has a landable spot within gliding distance in a place like minden once again good luck. Having lived and soared out of minden for over 20 years, way before most of you even realized it existed (only three guys regularly there, me, Carl Herold and Marcel Goudinat), Your going to need a 4,000 ft agl hard deck depending on the task specially since most guys flying today cringe at the very thought of having to put down in a 300 ft clearing in the sagebrush. Their idea of a "land out" is setting down at an away-from-home airport.

Your hard deck concept may have some merit on days of strong soaring conditions. On strong days a hard deck would eliminate guys who screw up needlessly and get low trying to save the day. But what about weak days where a contest is meant to test a guys ability to put up a good time when the soaring is marginal . There is a completely different skill set needed to win on those days and there are masters who excell in those type conditions. Low saves and low cruising are part and parcel for that type day. Your scheme eliminates their abilities.

Maybe its just a sign of the times where guys have no desire or ability to do anything on marginal days. Soaring competative xc is not all about fantastic speeds and 60 mile final glides. Sometimes its about scratching around at low altitude, trying to gain a few more miles. The majority of competition pilots have disgarded this type of contest. As such, the skill set needed to compete safely in these conditions has been forgotten. No wonder we have so many accidents on non-booming days involving low level soaring.

The Pine Nuts would be sticking well through the hard deck. There are safe landing sites an easy glide on both sides. I don't want to have to compete with the guy circling at 400 ft at the south end of the Minden Valley though.

Why not try it before buying it by allowing CD's the option to set a hard deck. They are setting the task, so they know the type of flying people will need to do to complete the task.

A task can be challenging without being dangerous, but "it depends" is a constant in our sport - the CD (Task committee) is in the best position to make the determination of what the limits should be on any given day. They already set the Max height and Task type/distance/direction - give them one more tool to try.

I agree we all do not want to reward bad piloting and I agree with many other points in this thread - I am not so sure how most of it prevents a good pilot with local knowledge like Tomas for who this thread was started, from making a fatal mistake - but doing nothing gets us a known result.

WH

Then that will limit the type of flying you will be comfortable doing. If that limited perspective is adopted by the majority of 18m competition pilots, then the rules need to be adjusted to reflect that. Clearly thats whats happening and I would agree that's the type of racing they all chhose to do..

However that being said, then one need not be surprised when guys screw up and having no experience with low flying/pea patch landing/ground scraping end up hurting themselves.

I can tell you, when I lived in minden I flew the 1-26, the pilatus b4 and the ventus all with the same personal minimums, knowing however that the ventus gave me many more options distance wise, but all three could be put (and were) into tight landing places. Doing that with the ventus however took me about 30 pattern tows before I got a handle on getting her in slowely and in limited distance.
During 20 years of flying all three ships I made 23 outlanding that were not at established airstrips. Bent the pilatus one time hitting a lone unseen fence post.

As for the cost of damage, I'm assuming your ship is insured. You have to have it anyways so did I. It hurts just as much bending a 1-26 as it does a glass bird.

I don't mind flying with that 400ft thermalling guy, as long as I'm not down there with him lol. He's already lost the day.

As "staff" on other forums, while I agree there is worthwhile conversation here, let's keep on topic, passing of a fellow pilot.....just saying.