RIP Tomas Reich - SGP Chile

"You can't fix stupid".
In any competition, someone will always bend/stretch the rules.
Terra firms tends to weed out some over time in flying. At the detriment of others......

The Minden valley is benign, but since my hypothetical contest was out of Truckee, and I am attempting to return late in day along pine nuts. Is the deck 14,000 at Bald Mtn if I attempt a final glide from there or 5500 if I go North by Air-Sailing?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The minden valley is about 4700 and pretty benign, so I'd put the hard deck in that area at 5500' MSL. The point is to not give points for low altitude thermaling.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Actually, I've heard sound arguments on both sides of this debate, both sides. Makes me think you're being sarcastic.

I respect John's proposing a concept he believes will help save lives. I originally thought the hard deck was some number above the estimated terrain altitude similar to the Altitude AGL field on my TopHat flight computer (based on the terrain altitudes in the mapping database).

But I think John is proposing big blocks of airspace, SUA style, that establish a horizontal plane over some swath of terrain below which we could not fly without incurring a penalty. That plane might be as little as a few hundred feet or less above a local high point or as much as thousands of feet above low and/or unlandable spots.

Would these new SUAs be different for Standard/15M Class vs. 18 Meter vs. Open Class, since the ability to glide out to a safe landing varies?

One of the challenges (consulting-speak for "problems") I see is navigating over these planes. We wouldn't be able to see them. Perfectly adequate clearance over the terrain under a nice-looking cloud or fast-climbing gaggle might, in fact, be under the hard deck by the time I glide there. Yes, the same is true for actual terrain but at least I can eyeball that on the way and make adjustments (proceed at slower speed, climb in weak lift, turn back).

Under the current rules, the Rules Committee has judged--probably not without reason--that it's unwise to allow us to overfly restricted/controlled airspace because we might not be able to glide out beyond the outer border. So all of those areas extend from their floors up to infinity for scoring purposes; i.e., we can fly under but not over.

The reverse is true in this proposal. It's not only OK to fly over these new "restricted" areas (i.e., the airspace below the hard deck), it's mandatory. The challenges I've mentioned--e.g., how to deal with unexpected sink or assess whether you can clear the edge of the airspace many miles ahead--exist with the actual terrain but at least you can see it without looking inside the cockpit every few seconds to check.

As anyone knows who has ever tried to stay under the start cylinder ceiling or climb out the top or climbed up next to P-40 at the R4N contest (FYI: P-40 is the prohibited area over Camp David, which extends out within a very short distance of the last, sun-facing, into-wind slope to climb up on the way home late in the afternoon, and into which the wind tends to drift you unless you keep opening up your circle), this requires a fair amount of attention if the margin is close. I can also see some analogies with the safety finish, which seems to continue to confuse pilots though they seldom encounter it.

Chip Bearden

Chip I only wish that guy was speaking tongue in cheek, regarding no good reasoning against a hard deck, he was serious in his assertions.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:17:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Actually, I've heard sound arguments on both sides of this debate, both sides. Makes me think you're being sarcastic.

I respect John's proposing a concept he believes will help save lives. I originally thought the hard deck was some number above the estimated terrain altitude similar to the Altitude AGL field on my TopHat flight computer (based on the terrain altitudes in the mapping database).

But I think John is proposing big blocks of airspace, SUA style, that establish a horizontal plane over some swath of terrain below which we could not fly without incurring a penalty. That plane might be as little as a few hundred feet or less above a local high point or as much as thousands of feet above low and/or unlandable spots.

Would these new SUAs be different for Standard/15M Class vs. 18 Meter vs. Open Class, since the ability to glide out to a safe landing varies?

One of the challenges (consulting-speak for "problems") I see is navigating over these planes. We wouldn't be able to see them. Perfectly adequate clearance over the terrain under a nice-looking cloud or fast-climbing gaggle might, in fact, be under the hard deck by the time I glide there. Yes, the same is true for actual terrain but at least I can eyeball that on the way and make adjustments (proceed at slower speed, climb in weak lift, turn back).

Under the current rules, the Rules Committee has judged--probably not without reason--that it's unwise to allow us to overfly restricted/controlled airspace because we might not be able to glide out beyond the outer border. So all of those areas extend from their floors up to infinity for scoring purposes; i.e., we can fly under but not over.

The reverse is true in this proposal. It's not only OK to fly over these new "restricted" areas (i.e., the airspace below the hard deck), it's mandatory. The challenges I've mentioned--e.g., how to deal with unexpected sink or assess whether you can clear the edge of the airspace many miles ahead--exist with the actual terrain but at least you can see it without looking inside the cockpit every few seconds to check.

As anyone knows who has ever tried to stay under the start cylinder ceiling or climb out the top or climbed up next to P-40 at the R4N contest (FYI: P-40 is the prohibited area over Camp David, which extends out within a very short distance of the last, sun-facing, into-wind slope to climb up on the way home late in the afternoon, and into which the wind tends to drift you unless you keep opening up your circle), this requires a fair amount of attention if the margin is close. I can also see some analogies with the safety finish, which seems to continue to confuse pilots though they seldom encounter it.

Chip Bearden

SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd.. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:00:45 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
The Minden valley is benign, but since my hypothetical contest was out of Truckee, and I am attempting to return late in day along pine nuts. Is the deck 14,000 at Bald Mtn if I attempt a final glide from there or 5500 if I go North by Air-Sailing?

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 11:22:56 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
The minden valley is about 4700 and pretty benign, so I'd put the hard deck in that area at 5500' MSL. The point is to not give points for low altitude thermaling.


Jonathan, the hard deck is not intended to get you home. It's intended to keep from having to compete with those who are willing to risk life and limb to win. The deck at Mt Baldy would be well below Mt. Baldy, as good airports (well, airports anyway) exist to the south, north, and east of the peak. It's probably the same 5500' MSL. A crash on Mt Baldy (and there have been) will be due to a stall spin, not running out of altitude to get to a landing.

A better question might be, what is the deck over Lake Tahoe? We have pilots that are willing to commit to the water, hoping that there will be sufficient ridge lift at Day Dreams to keep them from getting wet. Pilots have died trying this. We have had pilots place well at contests doing this. We have had well known foreign pilots landing on the golf course in Tahoe City and by some miracle missing everyone with no loss of life. A deck over the water that allows a return to South Shore or an exit through Spooner or Brockway passes prevents me from having to compete with those pilots. They're going to do it anyway on non-contest days, but I do not pay the price for their foolishness. There are posters here who will argue it is their right to get wet if they so choose. But that just hands the trophy to the greatest fool that survived his foolishness.

"Jonathan, the hard deck is not intended to get you home. It's intended to keep from having to compete with those who are willing to risk life and limb to win."

I surely don't understand this aversion toward competition. It appears you want to pick and choose who you race against. In this new scheme of things, you would have to eliminate moffat, striedeck, and Scott, all of which I have observed making very low saves, very questionable final glides, and making charges into very formidable terrain.

Under your ideology we would have to consider all of them uninformed inexperienced idiots when flying in their prime.

If the adage holds that the foolish only win occasionally and it is consistency that really counts, why not let things remain as they are, the cream will float to the top, you choose when to take chances and not and you keep yourself alive. Let the foolish be foolish. If you fly consistently then your accomplishments will become obvious without clogging up the competition with yet another set of complicated rules forcing guys to stare at their computers to be sure not to break a hard deck instead of looking out at the wx and the ground for a thermal or a safe place to land.

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:45:29 AM UTC-5, jfitch wrote:
On Thursday, January 25, 2018 at 7:41:40 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
Chip has made very good points. Most compelling is the simple point that a hard deck is a distraction. It's a contest scoring related distraction at a point in time and space that none of us can afford one. I know how much focus is required when approaching the class A airspace boundary. When a possible off-field landing is imminent, I don't have spare bandwidth to deal with an artificially created problem and its set of nuances.

I also strongly agree with Chip's point that human nature will allow that circling to the bottom of what is permitted must be OK for me since it would be OK for others. That factor, combined with the problem of altitude measurement uncertainty forces the hard deck to a large number that simply will not be acceptable.

I generally favor rules to encourage safety. I have long favored changing to mandatory Flarm. I see the hard deck idea, unfortunately, as not workable.

Why is the hard deck any different than the hard ground? Do you find the hard ground to be a distraction? You already successfully race over a hard deck - the ground. Why is this one any different?

In fact it is far less of a distraction, because violation of the rules results in a penalty, and violation of the ground results in death.

Because ground you can see and imaginary deck you can't so you have to keep looking at your instruments.

SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.

This GPS stuff is a fad. I still use a map and compass.

I do have a handful of electronic gadgets. And I even know how to switch them on most of the time. And we have high unlandable plateaus back east. And I've flown a Nationals out of Minden and turned at Truckee and Air Sailing, among other sites.

You've missed a big point: namely, what will my arrival height be vis-a-vis the hard deck? Say the hard deck is at 6,000 MSL. The valley is roughly 5000' MSL, more or less. I'm in the middle of the SUA so I don't care how far away the edge is. I spot a field fire (you have those out west too, at least at Uvalde) about 3-4 miles away. I'm at, say, 6,800' MSL, 800' above the hard deck and about 1,800' above the valley floor. But my glide computer is not much help because unless I can point to a specific spot on the screen and do a GoTo or otherwise see for sure that the fire lies within the amoeba (which, of course, I've reconfigured to account not just for peaks and ridges but also for SUA floors, or maybe it's two amoebas, one for reachable landing spots and another one for reachable hard deck range), I don't know whether I'll bust the hard deck getting to the fire.

It's landable here so in a contest (or even a practice flight if I don't have another thermal), I'll go for the fire, estimating I'll still be 1,000' AGL or so when I get there. But its location is uncertain and, therefore, so is my arrival altitude, especially given a jolt of sink just before I hit 10 kts up in the smoke.

Idle thought: maybe we should allow adjusting the hard deck for total energy, so if you dive down below it but can still pull up over it, you're not penalized. Just a thought!

It's the same glide calculation I have to make now based on the terrain. But I can SEE about what my projected clearance is likely to be and shave it down or augment it based on what's available nearby in which to land. Yes, it takes some experience to do so. Yes, some less experienced pilots will play it conservatively and not run for the fire. That's fine; they're safe. Others will plunge ahead without thinking and might have to land. It sounds harsh but the sensible pilots shouldn't be penalized by preventing them from exercising their experience and being rewarded for it because a few pilots don't exercise care. It's the other side of the coin of "don't penalize me because someone else stupidly flies over Lake Tahoe relying on ridge lift".

It's easier the thermal is marked by a gaggle and some gliders have FLARM because now they're depicted on my map display and I can project (with an extra step for the devices I use) what my arrival height should be.

Back East, there will a movement to convince the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service to equip soaring birds with tiny FLARM devices so we can see them on our computer screens and judge whether those low altitude bird saves will incur a penalty.

I think the idea of a hard deck has merit. I'm worried that all of us, including me, are tossing it around without thinking through the real-world problems of implementation. I'm in the technology business. It's very seldom the technology that fails in a project; it's almost always the implementation thereof.

That's why this discussion is valuable. And that's why I think dismissing anyone who offers reasonably informed comments in good faith fashion is a mistake.

BTW, I assume your ability to overfly the Reno Class C (ceiling 8400 MSL per the latest SUA files) without a catastrophic penalty is permitted by a special waiver. SSA Rules for sanctioned contests explicitly prohibit overflying such "closed" airspace, even when transponder equipped.

Chip Bearden

On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Yea, go for it and then race with yourself!