I didn't read every post before this one, but zero points for the day is
a bit harsh. What if you gave distance points only, but used the last
turnpoint successfully rounded as the landing point rather than the
location where the engine was started. You could also take it back one
previous turnpoint (if available) to put a little more emphasis on not
using the engine.

Dave Nadler "YO" wrote:
C'mon JJ - Flying both motorized and non-motorized, I can definitely state:

- The decision height with the motor is MUTCH higher, if you want to be
safe,

- The decision point is MUTCH more critical - try a failed motor-start,
followed by a non-retract, then landing with huge drag/sink of motor out...
Don't even think about trying an air-start low over the small field that
would
be fine with the (lighter, slower, low-drag) unpowered glider. Yea, it
usually
starts, but then this HAS happened to me (over an airport, TWICE).

- There have been multiple times I didn't finish because I had to decide to
air-start HIGH, and I would easily have finished in the unpowered glider
with lower and less critical decision heights.

I love the flexibiliity of the motor-glider, but it comes at a significant
penalty. Less so with a sustainer of course, which is a much better
compromise if you've got a tow to get started.

See ya, Dave


"JJ Sinclair" wrote in message
...

There are several questions concerning motorgliders on this years SSA /

SRA

pilot poll. Some of the questions may have been spurred by my letter dated

7/11

03 which follows

Members of the rules committee,
A few years back, we allowed motorgliders to have their engines available

for

in-flight retrieves, in regional and national competition. I thought it

was a

mistake at the time, but nothing much happened. No motorglider won the
nationals. The top pilots didn't rush right out and buy a motorglider.

This is

changing, I have flown with several motorgliders in open class in the last

few

years. Some very capable pilots are flying motorgliders and they enjoy a
distinct advantage. Allow me to give an example; At region 8 championships

on

day 2, the sky had been completely overcast for hours. The 5 contestants

in

open class were working warm areas of freshly plowed ground. We all made

it to

the last turn point, some 30 miles from home. None of us had enough

altitude to

attempt a final glide home. Two landed at the turn point, but the two
motorgliders started a final glide for home over mostly unlandable

terrain.

They were hoping for a bump to get them home. Not getting the bump, they

both

started their engines a few miles from home and got distance points to the
location where they started their engines. A few years back, I tried a

similar

final glide without sufficient altitude in my non-motorized Nimbus 3. I

ended

up a mile short with a broken ship.

I contend this is clearly an unfair advantage. I recommend we consider
returning to the rule that allowed the motorglider to have their engine
available for in-flight use, but they must land to get distance points.

Any

in-flight use would result in zero points for the day. They would still

have

the option of using a constructive landout, as is the case with

non-motorized

ships. The constructive land out is claimed after a landing, but not at

the

point of engine start. This rule would make motorgliders exactly EQUAL to
non-motored sailplanes, but still allow them the option of using their

engines

if the situation warranted its use. Allowing the engine to be available

would

also negate the argument that motorglider insurance may be invalidated if

their

engines were disabled. After landing, the motorglider would have the

option of

selflaunching and flying back to the contest airport.

Before the present rules were adopted, the motorglider was scored at the

last

achieved turnpoint, after an engine start. Returning to this rule wouldn't

be

fair because they could still make a final glide without sufficient

altitude.

If they didn't make it, and started their engine, they still get scored at

the

last achieved turnpoint. There would be no reason not to try the unsafe

final

glide.

On a lesser important note, some creative rules interpretation is occuring

at

the regional level. Some regions have optained a waver of the "All

launches

will be by aerotow" rule. I would ask that no more waivers be granted

because

selflaunching allowes the motorglider to drive around until they find a

good

thermal, before shutting down their engines.The non-motored contestant

must

release shortly after reaching release altitude. The creative rules
interpretation has also led to something called an "In-flight relight",

where a

low motorglider just flies within 1 mile of the airport and then starts up

his

engine and performs his in-flight relight. This is also clearly unfair to

the

non-motored sailplane who must land, possibly with water, shove his

sailplane

back to the end of the runway, and wait for a tow plane to come out. I

request

that more specific language be use to make these practices unavailable in

the

future.

Thank you for your consideration of the indicated rules changes. I request
these issues be placed on the fall pilots poll.
JJ Sinclair
PS. Please don't interpret my position as bad-mouthing motorgliders, we

need

them to fill out our fledgling 18 meter class and to bolster our dwindling

open

class. Zero points for engine use, may seem harsh, but after your careful
consideration, I believe you will come to the conclusion it is the only

way to

level the playing field again.

JJ Sinclair