On Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:53:44 PM UTC-5, Bravo Zulu wrote:
I can appreciate Hank Nixon’s idea that the rule should be clear and simple. I have little background in this particular issue but what I have not seen yet is the data that supports a fixed 200-foot penalty zone as opposed to some other number between the MFH and the land out. The only thing I see in the rule notes is that the 200’ value was established to accommodate instrument error. As I understand A10.9.2.2, the CD determines the altitude at one mile from which a safe landing at the contest airport can be made (normally considered 500’ plus adjustments for other traffic, terrain etc). The rule establishes the MFH as that altitude plus 200’ and requires all pilots to finish at MFH or incur a penalty that is graduated over 200’. A finish at MFH minus 201’ is scored as a land out, thereby costing as much as 400 points. If the goal of the rule is to prevent low-save attempts near the airport, why not increase the “penalty-zone width”, (my term) from the current 200’ to say, for example, 500’ and spread the penalty points out over the 500’. If most pilots start the final glide with MFH + glide alt required + 500 margin, then the FG would have to degrade to the point that the pilot suffers a loss of an extra 1000’ before going below the land-out altitude at 1 mile. If this rule were implemented for the 2014 season, there might well be an increase in finish penalties but there should be a marked decrease in low-save attempts on FG or land-out attempts resulting from them. Following John Cochran’s point, I expect that most pilots would accept a small penalty rather than attempt a risky save. If my expectations prove to be supported by future data analysis, then the administrative land-out part of the rule might be rendered obsolete. The other point I would make is that even a small finish penalty (FP) collected many times will significantly reduce a pilot’s competitive standing. Eventually, even the slow-thinking racers will figure out that they are better off coming in a bit high than a bit low. Seems to me that simply increasing the size of the “penalty zone” from 200’ to a larger value, say 500’, satisfies everyone. It is simple and clear, easy to implement, increases safety, and reduces the incentive to attempt a low save near the airport. BZ

I'm unclear by what BZ describes whether he is suggesting raising the top(1000 ft finish with 500 ft landout threshold, or lowering the bottom. Clearly the latter is less safe.
The 2014 rules changes reflect no changes in finish rules or scoring.
This general topic, not focused on this one sub set of the issue, was polled in 2013. One option described was a larger range over which score reduction might occur. Given no poll mandate for quich change, and mindful of the effect that changes have, the RC, wisely in my view, elected to stand pat for now.
The issue of pilots circling up tp avoid a land out score seems, to me, to be small compared to the overall safety benefit of the rules as currently used.
Sean raised this as a useful discussion point. Maybe some folks will understand a bit more about this now.
FWIW
UH