If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.

It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.


I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.

So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.

It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.

A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?

John Cochrane