wrote:
A man on a *serious* safety crusade should make *serious* arguments!
But here's an answer to the laughable argument raised by this thread:

I have given you 3 accidents where dehydration was a factor. I doubt
these pilots think dehidration is laughable.


Thanks for suggesting still more unintended hazards of the dreaded
finish cylinder!!! (You're up Chris.)

I think you mean the dreaded finish line, don't you? I'm advocating the
dreaded finish cylinder.


When it comes to safe landings by pilots in a compromised mental
state,
who, unfortunately, are likely to shut down even more mental systems
immediately after finishing, which maneuver has a better chance of
completion on autopilot: a routine, adrenaline enhanced, 90 second
follow the leader hop from low pass to landing?

I have given you a doctors opinion (NT) that the pull-up may be enough
to shut down the dehydrated mind. So, I think we can avoid the
shut-down mind situation by using the finish cylinder where a pull-up
isn't required.

Or a ten minute game
of blind man's bluff after a cylinder pullup to 1500 ft?

Pull-up is not necessary at the finish cylinder, so why do it?


Should we cancel just day 10 or does safety demand even shorter
contests to address the dehydration issue?

No, we should address the dehydration issue by using a finish cylinder
that puts pilots under less stress at the end of every contest day.


Should we decide which day to close the gate and open the cylinder
based on daily pilot weigh ins?

Weren't you the one that wanted me to make *serious* arguments?

After a cylinder finish for points, low passes for show are safe,
right?

No, If a pilot made a low pass when the finish cylinder was in use, I
would consider that unsafe flying and probably give him an unsafe
flying penalty (if I was CD'ing the contest)

JJ Sinclair