kirk.stant wrote:
I still think the current hard cutoff at 500 ft is a poor setup, due
to the difficuty for the pilot to accurately judge his altitude at the
time of crossing the line. If the goal is to make pilots finish
higher (for whatever reason), then there needs to be a finish window
the pilot can aim for that if he accurately figures his final glide,
will not be penalized. Let's assume we can hit a 200' window - and
assume that 300' agl is the cutoff for a safe pattern. Setup the
scoring so anywhere in the 200 ft window (300'agl to 500'agl ) is
neutral - if below the nominal 500', then add the time it would have
taken to climb in (based on the climb rate in the last thermal). That
would remove any incentive to finish lower than 500', but give a
reasonable window to shoot for before a bigger penalty (automatic
rolling finish score) kicks in.

Comment? Obvious problems?

I'd suggest the opposite. I think I should be rewarded for every foot
that I have over the minimum finish height of, say, 500' AGL. So, if I
finish at 2000' AGL, I should get the actual time I spent climbing the
last 1500' deducted from my task time. It's more accurate, and it
favors my chosen strategy, what's not to like? 8^)

In reality, any halfway decent glide computer, or software with access
to pressure altitude, will prior to takeoff either automatically
determine the field elevation or let the pilot set it manually. The
same sort of problem exists with the start cylinder if one can climb to
the top. The glide software I use (which I wrote) automatically
determines field elevation just prior to takeoff. It monitors my
altitude in the start cylinder, signals me if I climb through the top
and does a countdown when I reenter, provides progressive warnings as I
approach the hard altitude limit (usually 17500' MSL out here), and
automatically adjusts my arrival altitude based on the minimum finish
height, all based on that initial field elevation measurement. I'm
confident that this will work within a margin of 10 or 20 feet, as it
using the pressure altitude that will ultimately show up in the IGC
file, and I don't have to pay much attention to any of it.

The SN10 also does a pretty good job at this (mine is better, of
course), what's the issue?

Marc