Video on contest safety

Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.

Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.

Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T

"Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1:15:58 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.

Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T

"Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.

I think it is different than on might think.
Removing the scoring incentive to go low looking for lift has merit, except nobody does that intentionally.
If the hard deck is in place I expect that most pilots will continue to try to make a save, down to individual comfort level, for the simple reason that they want to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.
Most pilots who got caught by the safety finish still proceeded back to the airport for a more convenient landing. That said, the incentive to take the risk in the first place was strongly reduced.
FWIW
UH

This is something of an endless discussion which comes up yearly. There isn’t one single good solution. And there is debate on whether there needs to be a solution, is there truly a problem?

Leaching is a fact of life and has existed since forever in contests. Assigning start times? There is a solution which emplaces a handicap on the poor guy who is assigned a disadvantageous time. Having an open gate where guys can start at any height is doable. We have had that at the 1-26 Championships and it has worked well with many guys choosing to start out the top.

What about gaggles after the start? Just as dangerous on a weak day where the whole task is flown in gaggles. Give the guy who first found the thermal a bonus, thereby incentivising individual flying? Theres a thought, but theres another level of complication added to an already complicated imop system for scoring.

Hard decks? Legislation to eliminate stupidity? It helps, example finish height limits, but does not totally prevent guys from killing themselves who choose to fly beyond their skill set. Penalize me for my ability to safely make saves? I don’t like it, I already lost a **** load of time falling into the hole I managed to extract myself from. Thats penalty enough if you ask me. Put an artificial hard deck on my particular ship and I would not be able to get anywhere.

How about leaving the system as it is. Ingenious guys can and do find ways to minimize leaching. Weak day gaggle flying is just a fact of life we all have to live with. How about removing all contest letters from ships and scramble flarm signatures? Find me if you can, with only the contest management knowing who is who, Find/follow me if you can figure out who I am in the air. There’s a thought.

Dan

On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 10:34:32 AM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 1:15:58 PM UTC-4, jfitch wrote:
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.

Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T

"Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score.. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.

I think it is different than on might think.
Removing the scoring incentive to go low looking for lift has merit, except nobody does that intentionally.
If the hard deck is in place I expect that most pilots will continue to try to make a save, down to individual comfort level, for the simple reason that they want to avoid the inconvenience of a retrieve.
Most pilots who got caught by the safety finish still proceeded back to the airport for a more convenient landing. That said, the incentive to take the risk in the first place was strongly reduced.
FWIW
UH

My support of the hard deck isn't to prevent people from killing themselves.. I don't much care. But I do not want to compete against those with that death wish. I think the idea works perhaps quite differently in flat land vs.. mountain flying. My flying is nearly all mountain flying. A low save out here might be at 3000 or even 4000 AGL - there being no known safe landing site in range from there. Properly constructed, the hard deck would incentivize all pilots to retreat and search for thermals closer to safe (and convenient) landing sites. This is completely fair, unless you feel your only competitive advantage is accomplishing low saves. Nobody gets low intentionally, but some some consistently end up there.

As it is, if there is a cloud on the horizon over tiger country, you know you can make it there but not back, there is an 80% chance of connecting (and a 20% chance of crashing or a 4 day retrieve): there are some pilots that will take that bet. 80% of the time they will win the day. They can do that three days in a 6 day contest and still have 51% chance of winning 3 days and thus the contest. If you do not care about your glider or your health, this is a rational strategy. It is self limiting, but only over a long period of time.

Secondarily, the hard deck mitigates the objections to motorgliders: since the whole contest is flown within glide to safe and convenient landing sites, the convenience advantage of a motor retrieve is lessened. And the incentive to treat the motor as a 'get out of jail free' card on a trip to that cloud on the horizon over tiger country is effectively eliminated.

The argument that getting low and having to dig out of a low save is punishment enough is valid only if all your fellow competitors stayed high. If they were also low, and chose a safe landing site over a questionable low save which results in completing the task, you will be richly rewarded - perhaps with an insurmountable contest lead. Booming days when nearly everyone stays high are not the problem.

Jfitch thanks for the post. We have both had this same discussion before. Competition by its very nature is competition. We all do it for various reasons and motivations. If one is looking for absolute safety in competition just sign up for condor racing and have a ball. As for reality racing you said it yourself, the guy who takes major chances beyond reasonability will eventually 1. Loose, 2. Hurt himself. The odds are against the guy who consistently finds himself digging out of holes on race days. Thats a fact. He may win a day or two, he may even win a contest or two but he will not be a consistent winner. Thats his choice and his problem. Neither I, ssa, nor contest management is responsible for his choices.

Those of us who object to another level of legislation/control are objecting because we object to a “nanny state� mentality that is creeping into every aspect of society. We soar for the freedom it delivers. We race for the measure it gives us of our skills. Some of those skill involve knowing our own capabilities and applying them to the fullest. That may involve taking chances at landing out. That may involve reaching for an area we suspect has lift, getting there low, connecting and moving on. Thats not necessarily luck, thats making an educated decision, weighing the odds and trying it. Those are soaring skills. If we don’t want to test those skills in a contest then it becomes another set of skills we are testing, namely how well we can follow someone else who is making our decisions for us, hence the prevelence of gaggle flying today etc.


I hate gaggle flying, I trust my skills but not those of many of the idiots flying today. I fly my own race and yes it had cost me on weak days but so be it. It is still a test of my knowledge, decision making skills, and my choices along task.

A hard deck is another level of restriction not needed by the majority of racers. The guys who push beyond their abilities will still do just that, they will, as someone else here stated, still thermal low just to avoid the hassle of a land out even if they know their only gonna get distance points n still wreck themselves. Nothing gained by the rule. Or they will find other creative ways to screw up, damaging their ships and themselves.

Dan

Jfitch, good post.

From the 2018 discussions and IGC analysis, the risk affecting others in crowded thermals seems like the first thing to work on. Would a 'didn't have to center it' time penalty work here?

The rest (leader/follower and low saves from tiger country) seem more about fairness or safety to self (nanny state stuff). Perhaps if you have a motor and do tiger country things that seem likely to lower your odds of finishing the contest without one, there could be a points cost. The leader follower stuff seems a just cause still waiting for someone to come up with a good idea.

The Gaggle problem and Leeching issue is not not going away, no matter what..
Gaggles form up because pilots are joining up in the best lift in the area with the best pilots; what do we expect pilots to do? Leave the best guys and thermals to go off on there own? Not gonna happen. Luckily Flarm has really helped with the mid air gaggle issue, it works!
We owe B4 a
Big
Thank you for making this mandatory early on in his meets when there were na-sayers out there
Thank You Bruno Vassel!!

Leeching has been happening since the first two gliders got together under a cloudstreet and is also not going anywhere. Under any conditions, I see Karl Streideck or Tim Taylor or Dave Leonard head out in front of me I'm probably going to follow, they are simply smarter than me. And its more fun to fly with your friends, thats why I go to contests, to fly with my friends..
The above "Problems" are due too human nature. We want to stay up to start with and go faster and further, groups obviously do both better.

You don't need to be a Rocket Scientist to figure that out.
Fly Safe in 2020
Nick
well known to gaggle and leech with the best of 'em
T

Leeching may have been around since the beginning of soaring. I haven't been but I was around when people started complaining loudly about it in the 70s. I think it got to be especially bad because of three things:

1. The Byars & Holbrook Soaring Symposia and books/articles by Moffat and Reichmann had made flying fast comprehensible to the average pilot. The mystery was gone. The rest of us may not have been able to execute as well as the top pilots but we understood how they were doing it.

2. The composite revolution in sailplanes made essentially identically performing high-performance gliders widely available to a larger number of pilots. When you had to own a Sisu to have a reasonable chance of winning, that was difficult: there were less than a dozen and they cost a small fortune. And you had to know how to tune and fettle with one to extract the most performance. But the Libelle 301 and the first generation of Standard Class gliders such as the Standard Cirrus, ASW 15, and Libelle 201 made it far easier for the average pilot to stay with the top ones.

3. At the time, national contests often filled up. So it was important to be ranked high enough to gain entry. The straightforward way was Category 1 status; i.e., top ten in one of the three previous nationals. That's a joke now when entire national fields can be less than 10 but it was a big deal then. And the easiest (maybe the only) way for good but not-quite-the-best pilots to make it into the top ten was by leeching Karl Striedieck, George Moffat, Ben Greene, or one of the handful of guys you knew were going to win.

It stayed that way for a long time. I still recall the swings of emotion I had when KS rolled in with me out on course in the early 90s. "Wow, Karl is using my thermal!" And then, "Watch out! There are ten other guys following him who don't even see me."

Leeching and big gaggles are not quite the same thing. Leeching means following another pilot mindlessly, even when they get lost. Gaggling can mean using markers ahead to find thermals, flying with other good pilots who share the work of leading out and spreading out to find the best life, or--leeching.

The only contest of any size I've flown recently was Nephi in 2016 where we had three classes--and that also filled up. I don't recall leeching or gaggling being as much of a problem then. I have read and listened to accounts about recent world championships, however, that indicate both are problems there, not just for scoring but for safety. So, yeah, it would be good to find a way to reduce their popularity--without adding a lot of complication and, frankly, making competitive soaring even less attractive to the average pilot than it is now. Because let's be honest: there are very few contests in the U.S. where more competitors wouldn't be welcomed eagerly by the organizers and many competitors as long as they are safe.

Chip Bearden
JB

Spoken like a dedicated leach, Nick, but our championships are held to determine the best pilot, not to provide enjoyable cruising with your buddies!
JJ