I agree with Bruce 100%. I've watched many thousands of competition finishes over the last 30 years (including quite a few of Bruce's!), and done a few myself. There is no doubt that it's low energy finishes that are dangerous. I've seen gliders broken in low energy finishes, but I've yet to see an accident that resulted from a high energy one.
Low fast finishes are part of our sport, and are fun both to do and to watch. The record speaks for itself in telling us that they are not dangerous. As Bruce says, the GFA is to be congratulated for finding a way to allow us to do them legally. On a related matter, there is a downside to making arbitrary rules about finish heights or circuit behaviour in competitions. I have seen pilots forcing gliders on to the ground to do a straight-in at speed because they were unexpectedly below some arbitrary height limit for a circuit, and that is genuinely scary. I've also seen a glider damaged because the contest director had made a rule about not crossing the active runway under 800ft and the pilot tried to obey instead of making a safe landing. Pilots are responsible for landing gliders safely - not contest directors, rule-makers or anyone else. The pilot in command must decide how and where it is safest to land. If a competition pilot does something irresponsible or unsafe, there should of course be a penalty - but you can't define responsibility or safety by rules or numbers. Cheers Tim -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Taylor Sent: Wednesday, 7 February 2007 20:41 To: Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia. Subject: Re: [Aus-soaring] Darwinnian Selection and low competition finishes Just wanted to put in my 2 cents worth, but I think most already know my opinion on this subject. Historically we don't see pilots mess up from 10 feet at 120 kts - what we DO see is pilots succumb to Darwinnian selection by arriving in the circuit area at 100 feet and 50 kts with no plans. In a modern fully ballasted glider the difference between doing 120 knots for the last 20 km and sliding home gracefully exactly on a sensible McReady glide is only going to be a couple of turns extra in the last climb, at the most. And if winning comps is all about consistency... that is actually arriving home for a beer as opposed to landing in the last paddock before the finish line... then I will chose the extra height any day. Plus this means I can usually squeeze in a filthy low finish, because that is just plain old good fun! Good on GFA and CASA for finding a way to make it legal. BT ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alan WIlson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "'Discussion of issues relating to Soaring in Australia.'" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 11:08 PM Subject: RE: [Aus-soaring] Darwinnian Selection and low competition finishes > Geez, > > I have sat on the sidelines watching those that want high speed > finishes, noted the GFA training directive, and concluded that Darwinian > selection will solve the challenge. > > Firstly McReady: the damage to competition speed is already done some 50 > km/5,000 feet away. One should have been on McReady, rather than > finishing, under confident, at 200+KPH from 20 km. > > In the 1970's I recall calculating on a slide rule that a Blanik kinetic > at 136 KNOTS, AMSL, no losses, equated to potential to 45 kts at 500 > feet ~ or similar. [That is basic, 1/2 Mv^2 = mgh] Then that same > sprog [me] could do a circuit and find somewhere to land that 20 others > on the same final glide had not already filled!!! [Thanks Tracey T > Narromine 77?] > > And I Directed competitions [in the l970's] that accepted finishes > provided the glider was on the airfield [and that had risks - those in > the clubhouse may not have seen them, or validated the finish [not to > mention that 50 kts hoping to clear the near fence kills v 5 knots at > the far fence]]. Then we had staff out in the 40C, now we have > GPS/loggers. > > I appreciated refamil in JAN 2006 at Temora [tks Ron] where we ducked 20 > gliders around the task, BUT the final objective was to be parked: off > the far upwind end of a safe runway where no-one else could possibly hit > us. Then and only then [in 40C] tow back to tie downs. > > GFA won't need a low finish procedure, Charles Darwin will have solved > the problem. > > GFA should reinstitute the mandate: either straight in approaches, or a > minimum of 500 ft AGL' 100 kts across the clubhouse/finish line/GPS > cylinder. From somewhere the professional sprog can land safely. > > Alan Wilson > Australian World Masterschiefter [sp] pilot 1976 > Australian Diamond 50, 1978 > Canberra _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
