Hank Nixon wrote:
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.

I am not suggesting that the RC lower the bottom but rather raise the top of the “penalty zone”. As I read the RC notes concerning proposed rule changes on the SSA website, it says in part:
Guidance Revised: Setting Minimum Finish Height
This amends the guidance to highlight the need to consider additional factors

The notes suggest to me that the CD has great latitude on setting the MFH depending on the competition site and other considerations. It defines the MFH as “the minimum height for a penalty-free finish.” The notes continue, “Because a valid finish (with a very small penalty) may be up to 200’ below the MFH (to accommodate instrumentation errors),it is this lower height that should be considered when setting the MFH. Thus in the absence of
landability, traffic, or other concerns, the MFH should normally be 700’ AGL at a mile, which
avoids creating a big step in points (landout rather than speed finish) at 300 ft AGL leaves even
the lowest valid finisher with 500’ for a pattern and landing.

I read that is the minimum altitude to avoid a land out is “normally 500’ with a “penalty zone” of 200’ more. I am simply suggesting that the rule could be improved by adding 300’ to the fixed 200’ as a “penalty zone”. That would preserve the accommodation for instrument error and add an additional measure of safety. It would also make the accumulation of penalty points for a slightly low finish more gradual. My suggestion of a 500’ “penalty zone” was just an example. The RC could pick another number if it were more efficacious. The bigger it is the more gradual the accumulation of penalty points would be. The effect is that for a small error in arrival height there is less incentive to attempt a low save. Finding oneself 200’ lower that intended is more likely than being 500’ lower.