A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Short cuts



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old January 10th 18, 07:41 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 290
Default Short cuts

Oh Charles I'm surely not into any more fragmentation of our ranks. We are few enough already, I'm just bringing up the point that having a sustainer does change the dynamic. At the most I'd put an asterisk next to any records they set. As for racing I think within the next decade or so all of the competition ships will probably be sustainers so the discrepancy will actually solve itself.
Ads
  #12  
Old January 10th 18, 07:48 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 290
Default Short cuts

Well Bob I hear ya there, however with the price tag of sustainer equiped ships, I know there will always be a bunch of us conventional sailplane fliers doing our thing and needing a tow "up the hill".
  #13  
Old January 10th 18, 08:06 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,791
Default Short cuts

1-26 rules actually still allow multiple attempts after landout, if the glider is returned by trailer. The auto tow incident prompted a rule that ends a pilots flying day if he returns from a landing by air.
  #14  
Old January 10th 18, 08:36 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 406
Default Short cuts

On 1/10/2018 12:35 PM, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 1:10:09 PM UTC-5,
wrote:

Snip...

This very issue [motorgliders] was discussed in the 1950's by the SSA
rules committee, you can find their discussions in the archived records.
I believe the first big discussion was in 1955. At that time they ruled
against allowing motorized gliders to race with conventionals for these
very reasons.



Excluding the motor guys because "they're not like us" may make some
people feel better but it forces them to either go away or form their own
group. Neither option does participation much good. We need all the
participants we can get.

Jeez, it must be winter...here I go trying to convey nuance on RAS.

A part of me struggles to (understand? buy into?) the logic noted by UH. I
understand the general concern involving 'going somewhere else in order to
participate' and the 'need [for] all the participants we can get.' I also
understand the community of 'racing sailplane pilots' is a subset of
'sailplane pilots,' and in that sense a (not entirely informal) subset of SSA.
I'm unconvinced 'racing balkanization' as a concern adequately applies here,
since it's arguably been happening ever since 'the movement' morphed into (for
example) open/15-meter-span classes...continuing until today.

Grouping (associating) seems inherently human, and as far back as the 1830s,
de Tocqueville noted Americans seemed particularly prone to doing so; I
suspect were he capable of observing and commenting today, he wouldn't change
this particular observation. My point: IMO there's nothing inherently 'bad'
with (sub-)associations. As a general approach, it continues to serve EAA
well, f'r'example. FWIW, SSA has historically been reluctant to 'universally
embrace' all aspects of soaring flight, case in point being hang-gliding in
the 1970s.

'U.S. motorglider guys' formed their own association beneath SSA's umbrella
pretty early on. They must not have felt 'forced away' Perhaps it happened
simply because sufficient groundswell within their ranks existed? Something
else...?

I understand the 'infrastructure-based' arguments *for* 'racing
consolidation', e.g. attracting contest organizers in the face of declining
overall participation makes proliferating contest classes problematic. The
'marketplace of ideas' seems to be responding to that these days with various
combined-class contests, and to-date I've not come across any obvious
groundswell that's a bad thing, or that it's an approach driving potential
participants away. If anything, the opposite is true.

Me not/never being a contest pilot, I completely understand and agree with
UH's ending assertion. I'm not so sure I agree with some of the intervening
logic leading to where 'the contest scene' is today. Example? I'm unconvinced
it's an 'either/or situation' as is so often posited in discussions of this sort.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

  #15  
Old January 10th 18, 09:31 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Craig Funston[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 36
Default Short cuts

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 11:35:01 AM UTC-8, Bob Kuykendall wrote:
Few skiers pine for the days before ski lifts, when they'd snowshoe up the hill for a run.


Yep Bob, and those are the ones you'll fine on AT gear now. Earn your turns ;-)
  #16  
Old January 11th 18, 12:57 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Don Johnstone[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 370
Default Short cuts

At 20:06 10 January 2018, Tony wrote:
1-26 rules actually still allow multiple attempts after landout, if the
glider is returned by trailer. The auto tow incident prompted a rule

that
ends a pilots flying day if he returns from a landing by air.

are you saying that trailer racing is still permitted? I remember those
days over here, great fun except during the haste when someone
missed connecting up some control.

  #17  
Old January 11th 18, 01:05 AM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
Tony[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,791
Default Short cuts

yes the 1-26 rules still allow a pilot to re attempt the task after a trailer retrieve. I know that Team Vihlen did this at the rained out championships in Caesar Creek that I attended. I highly doubt it is very commonly practiced.
  #18  
Old January 11th 18, 07:26 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 386
Default Short cuts

On Wednesday, January 10, 2018 at 8:05:22 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
yes the 1-26 rules still allow a pilot to re attempt the task after a trailer retrieve. I know that Team Vihlen did this at the rained out championships in Caesar Creek that I attended. I highly doubt it is very commonly practiced.


Aside from the rule, another reason that practice isn't viable here in the U.S. is the prevalence of crewless pilots at contests. It's one thing to get your family or a really good friend out on the road on iffy days just in case you need a quick retrieve. That's a non-starter without a crew.

And, yeah, I've heard the 1-26 "retrieve by autotow" story--no doubt enhanced in the retelling--a few times myself.

Chip Bearden
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Charging system failure cuts short a long X-Country Ron Lee[_2_] Piloting 10 November 15th 07 11:04 PM
Prowler squadrons cuts [email protected] Naval Aviation 7 January 28th 05 12:04 AM
Prowler squadrons cuts [email protected] Naval Aviation 0 January 25th 05 09:15 AM
O'Hare cuts, round two Big John Piloting 9 May 3rd 04 01:48 AM
RAF Cuts Myedniy Vsadnik Military Aviation 3 February 21st 04 08:31 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.