Serial v. Open Class Revisited

The annual discussion flurry about "Serial V. Open Class Competitions" has flared up this month. . . The ignition point was a letter of resignation from Mark Hayman to Brit team leader Kitt Rudd. In it Mark criticized CIVL for making banal rule changes that essentially did little to improve safety.

Mark writes: “I know, living in the real world, that every time I attach an uncertified two-line glider to my body I am increasing my risk substantially of having an accident over flying a certified wing.”

Mark was participating in Valle de Bravo in 2009 when he watched Stefan Schmoker wrestle with a low collapse and make a fatal impact.  Mark also had a brush with mortality when he had a major event on his R10.2 that included lines wrapping around his neck as he descended under his reserve.

His message has been loud and clear. . . and, as many times happens when one raises the flag of caution, his message seems at times, to be somewhat overstated -  Perhaps so his voice is heard by the resistant masses of enthusiastic pilots who enjoy the sport as it is.

R10.2 line plan

Marks' main point seems to be that the new crop of 2-liner wings are being accepted by CIVL, and being flown by every wanna-be comp pilot, with only a superficial examination of the flying characteristics of these wings.  The prevailing views seem to be that the current crop of 2-liners (essentially a row of A-lines at approximately 25-30% chord - and B-lines at 60% chord) are very collapse resistant when flown well.  The problems become apparent after the wing goes away - the recovery characteristics are just plain bad.  Where as an EN-D (certified) glider is required to recover with proper pilot input, the 'open-class' uncertified wings aren't required to demonstrate recovery.   It's not uncommon to hear of 2000'+ cascades before the wing recovers or the excitement is terminated in a reserve toss.  Mark is simply asking, as am I, IS THIS REALLY THE KIND OF AIRCRAFT BEHAVIOR THAT WE WANT TO PROMOTE?

I've been flying a long time.  I've flown all kinds of aircraft.  But I've always known that if the aircraft departed from "normal flight attitudes" that I could recover without the need to bail-out.  Even the homebuilts - the early fiberglass competition sailplanes that had marginal stability - the 2nd generation swept-wing jets that required 'skills' - they all displayed a required, predictable level of safety and handling.  Mark's primary message is that this is not the case when flying the open-class wings of the last 2 years.

The argument to Mark's point, is that the "good" pilots have no problem on the new wings.  I agree that with the right set of skill, judgment, and luck a good pilot can successfully fly the new wings without incident.  But is that a healthy attitude when considering the sport as a whole?  Let's look at US pylon racing in the 1930s - Speed and performance ruled - The good pilots lived the longest, but even they couldn't fly aircraft that had negative stability and couldn't survive minor equipment failures without fatal consequences.  To compete with the fastest "good" pilots, many other pilots flew similar *dangerous* aircraft and died trying.  Was that the fault of the pilots, or the system that allowed dangerous machines in the air and required others to compete on that "level" playing field?


Pylon races, in spite of their popularity, didn't survive the carnage of 1933 - 1940 and the interuption of a couple of world wars.  Now the few races that are staged in the US are very highly regulated and safety is highly regarded.

So the question becomes one of scale and philosophy.  How many accidents/incidents are to occur before Mark's cautionary message becomes valid?  In my case, he's preaching to the choir. 

In a parallel logic path, the DHV in Germany is making some important moves that may get the parade moving in the right direction. Jorge Ewald translates -

From a post on the German Forum by Ulrich Prinz:

* DHV recognizes the harmonic community of Serial and Open Class pilots in Germany as a good model that may be applicable for FAI-1 events as well: Introduce a Serial class in parallel, crown a Serial Class World Champion. This would prevent pilots from lower qualification countries from giving in to the temptation to fly in the Open class, just to remain competitive. Hence the DHV will now work on the international level to introduce the Serial Class in parallel, rather than to get rid of the Open class. [which is a complete paradigm change, as far as I can see. Great, Mark Hayman - given he stays away from bikes and stairwells long enough to heal - may have a glorious come-back. Mads and other PWC old-timers may feel like after an involuntary ride in a De Lorean, though...]

* DHV (especially Charlie Jöst, their president) will task the DHV technical department with finding new test criteria for competition wings (in collaboration with the other testing houses). This because it is now understood that today's testing criteria are not applicable to competition wings, which were built for actively piloting pilots

It's great to see a European entity, with an official acronym, working in a reasonable fashion to actually make some positive changes in the way Serial class is viewed.  Stay Tuned!

Tim

Flytec's 6030 soon to have features of the Flymaster B1Nav!

Hey sportsfans - The folks at Flytec just announced there will be a significant firmware update for the 6030 very soon. It is being tested at the January HG comps in OZ and PWC comp in Columbia. If there are no significant bugs reported that cannot be quickly fixed they expect to release it at the end of this month.

Click for link to my magazine review

The "significant features" added include:

• Optimized route.
• Goal line finish
• Speed to start cylinder
• Nascent/near thermal tone
• NMEA output over Bluetooth

Yep, the $1449 SRP Flytec 6030 will soon (maybe) have the same features as the $630 Flymaster B1Nav.

It's great that Flytec is adding these features.  I don't sell either instrument and I don't really care which is 'best' - I just don't like the big-guys using their influence to control the market and the price points of a niche business.  I especially don't like our limited publications allowing this control to be exercised in their pages.  When I mentioned these "significant features" in my review of the B1Nav, it was considered an unbalanced view ;-)

Tim

For additional background, see my review of the B1Nav - http://biggovtsucks.blogspot.com/2010/08/flymaster-b1-nav.html
and the reaction to it's publication:

http://biggovtsucks.blogspot.com/2010/11/really.html

REALLY?!

In an August post I reviewed the Flymaster B1Nav integrated flight instrument.  This post has been one of my most read posts, accessed through Google, by those researching flight instrument purchases.

I reformatted this post and submitted it to the U.S. USHPA magazine for inclusion in the October 2010 issue.  Before publication, the article was edited by the USHPA editor, Nick Greece.  The article came out and, except for some rather frustrating formatting errors and missing graphics, read the way I had written it - after being edited by the USHPA editor.  The article can be seen in it's published format here ->  http://issuu.com/us_hang_gliding_paragliding/docs/1010web_mag/18?mode=a_p

The article was written from the standpoint of (me) a pilot wishing to update his instrumentation or enter the Competition XC fray.  I prefaced the review by indicating my prior instrumentation was an "aging" Flytec 5020 and a Garmin 76S.  I also wanted to convey to the large number of aspiring XC pilots, who cannot afford a $1500 unit, that the B1Nav might be an affordable integrated instrument that delivers the necessary features while costing much less.

I want to fully disclose that I have received some minor discounts on some of my gear because I am an active pilot and this blog has a readership (20,000 page views in the last 6 months).  I've never made a statement that I haven't fully believed, nor made a recommendation based upon a freebie offered to me.  And I didn't this time - I honestly recommend the Flymaster B1 Nav for those who don't want to spend a grand and a half for a comparable Flytec unit.

Then I received the November USHPA mag. . .

In it, on page 9, was included a NOTE FROM THE EDITOR that addressed, solely and specifically, the article I had written and that had been edited by the editor.  The "note' covered more than nine column inches and seemed to be written as a counterpoint to my article.  It read, suspiciously, like it had been written by Flytec themselves, using the USHPA editor as a mouthpiece and the non-advert pages of the USHPA magazine as their advertising space.

It stated that "the article was not a review based on objective facts."  This is an accusation of personal bias and I resent the unveiled insinuation.  I'm a Flytec owner.  I like my Flytec instrument but it's time to upgrade to a newer unit and I reviewed the Flymaster after buying it.  Bias was not a factor.

It criticizes the fact that I compare it to the 5020 - after I prefaced my review by stating this fact.

It also states, "... since the B1Nav lacks significant features and functionality (compared to units costing twice as much) the comparison is weak."  This statement was made by the editor without a single example to support the statement. Frankly I'd like to hear what these 'features' are, since I don't fly one of these top-of-the-line units and wasn't reviewing them.

Then a comparison was made by the USHPA Editor to the Flytec 6015 as a "comparable unit".  I'd wager an expensive beer that this statement was made without him ever flying the 6015.  At least I referenced instruments that I own and have flown in cross country competitions.  To state that the 6015 has comparable features is nonsense.  The B1Nav is fully featured - read the article.

I have no interest in starting a feud with Nick.  He's a good guy and an excellent pilot.  I generally like the work he's done with the mag.  But an editor has authority and responsibility.  He exercised his authority and completely dodged all responsibility.

I think what's happened here is this - The October issue was edited during some seriously busy XC competition schedules this Summer.  The article wasn't my best work and his efforts to edit it properly were probably hindered by a busy flying schedule.  Then, after publication, Flytec USA gave Nick a lambasting, using every ounce of influence that their advertising dollars impart.  Nick's response was the NOTE FROM THE EDITOR where he threw me under the bus.

And now, this is my response to the NOTE.  You wouldn't be reading this if Nick had manned-up and acknowledged some responsibility as the editor of the article.  Instead he caved in when the pressure was on -  and the casualty was an uncompensated contributor.  If one uses a national magazine to attack my credibility, the least I can do is to respond on this little blog -

NEWS: Flytec has announced that they plan to add "significant features" to the 6030 firmware.  These features are already offered on the Flymaster B1Nav.

Fly safe and contribute to the USHPA mag, if you feel lucky -

Tim