"Marc Ramsey" wrote in message
news

"John Cochrane" wrote...
Here is the proposal: before the finish, you have to be above 500 feet
AGL in a donut from 2 miles out to one mile out. If you don't make
this altitude limit, you will be scored for distance points when you
land at the airport. When the actual finish is a line, you may then
dive down and cross the line at the usual altitude.
...
The proposal removes the agonizing points vs. life decision. If you
don't make it with a 500 foot margin, you don't get speed points. Make
your decisions based only on safety. If it's safer to squeak it in to
the airport, do so. If it's safer to land in the good field 5 miles
out, do that. Forget the race.

I hate to sound like one of those libertarians, but I have to say this
proposed
rule goes too far.

http://www.lp.org/quiz/ take the World's Smallest Political Quiz--you may be
one! :-)
Back on topic....

As a new competitor (and an old libertarian), John's statement that the rule
is really targeted at newer competitors is one I don't understand. Newer,
less experienced competitors are free under the current rules to arrive at
the finish near cloudbase if they want to. As a new competitor, I
understand that I don't have the experience to be squeeking in final glides
in contests for the points. Hell, I'm just trying to get from the top of
the bottom quartile into the bottom of the third quartile. My final glide
plan is very conservative, more so than what John's proposal calls for.
That's what I'll do regardless of what the rules say I _may_ do--because I
know what I _can_ do comfortably.

Current rules allow competitors to put themselves into positions where the
pucker factor can get extreme. Current rules do not require competitors to
put themselves in those positions. I believe my more conservative final
glide plan is the right thing for me to do, but I don't think that gives me
the right to require others to fly more conservatively.

Brent