(JJ Sinclair) wrote in message

Now, given this is a totally arbitrary choice, doesn't it make a
little sense to end the race 500 feet away from the cold hard ground?

I agree completely, John. Now lets talk about the penalty for arriving at 490
feet? Distance only? Isn't that a bit harsh?

JJ Sinclair

Well, one answer is, "what is the penalty for finishing at -10 feet
now?" It's even harsher! Moving the race up 500 feet has reduced, not
increased, the penalty for arriving 10 feet too low.

But if this is the only objection, I would be delighted to support a
graduated penalty. For example, it could be distance points only below
400 feet, then x points per foot below 600 feet. This is a minor issue
compared to the major one, do we do it at all.

The question of graduated vs. sharp penalties is an interesting (and
separate) issue. Having decided on some limit, including max start
altitude, start radius, prohibited airspace, turnpoint radius, etc.,
as well as a finish height, does it make more sense to write a simple
sharp rule, and let pilots judge how much of a margin they want to
leave, or is it best to have graduated penalties so that pilots who
don't leave enough margin are not too severely affected by
"accidents"?

I prefer simple rules: Over max start, one fix in a prohibited area,
etc. and you get the penalty, period. Wise pilots leave some margin (I
do beleive in pilot judgment, especially when only points are at
stake!) But I am in a minority, and therefore the rules contain a
mind-boggling set of provisions for graduated penalties; so many
points per foot for quite some distance, and then the full penalty.

Why don't I like it? Nobody can remember all these penalties, and once
they are there, using them becomes part of contest strategy. It has
happened to me that it was advantageous to claim a turnpoint while
taking the 100 point penalty rather than ignore it. (I was 50 feet
below ingalls on a MAT. Just couldn't get there!) This took knowing
the rule, and a lot of quick calculation before turning in the landing
card. Thus, the rules have become much more complex, and really
serious pilots cannot ignore the complexity.

The only point of the graduated penalty is to encourage pilots to cut
it as close as possible, e.g. hang in the start gaggle at 4999', glued
to the altimeter, knowing 5001' is a small penalty not zero for the
day, rather than hang in the start gaggle at a more comfortable 4700',
knowing the simple rule that one fix over 5000' ends the day and the
contest.

The same point goes on the finish altitude. Do we want to encourage
people to really cut it close with a graduated penalty (needing lots
of heads down time), or do we want to say "look, there's a cliff at
500 feet, so come in at 700 or 800, ok?" Is encouraging people to cut
it close important at all, or important enough that it's worth
clogging the rules with numbers?

Everyone keeps saying "we need simple rules!" Well, here is a place to
get them: throw out all the graduated penalties and set your own
limits. Or do people not really mean it about simple rules?

Again this is not a strong opinion, nor a terribly important issue.
The opposite end is actually self-serving; I'm really good at math and
willing to spend the time to figure out how to game all these little
rules for advantage. I just don't think that situation is good for the
sport.

Still, if a graduated penalty is all it takes to put in a high point
before finish, count me in!

John Cochrane
BB