On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

Rules committee please explain why we did not immediately reverse the land out rule on finishes when you saw these results? How much clearer do you need the data to be to react and rectify a rule that was not liked by 3 out of 4 pilots?

Tim Taylor


Here's the explanation - my personal interpretation.

The survey included a question on the overall rule approach to get pilots' view of relative proportionality versus other penalties.

The least severe option as applied to a 1000' finish cylinder (which in my experience is the mode MSH currently in use) would invoke a penalty such that a rolling finish would get distance points. This is slightly more severe than your option - 0.5 points per foot (less a 100' buffer). It is more severe than the current rule for the first few hundred feet (I'd need to model it to get the crossover), less severe for middle altitudes and about the same for a rolling finish. We saw it as less severe overall.

The middle choice called for a more severe penalty than the start penalty - it did not specify how much more. Let's say 0.75 to 1.0 points per foot. For a 1,000' gate this would be 675-900 point penalty for a rolling finish. This was viewed as about the same as current option, since there are several hundred feet in the middle where the points penalties are close and we didn't assume pilots took it that the rules would ever penalize to a total score less than distance points.

The most severe option was a landout for being lower than MFH (allowing for altimeter error). This was viewed as more severe than the current option - mandatory landout for missing MFH.

So the summary was 1/4 for less severe, 1/2 for about the same and 1/4 for more severe. It wasn't just the survey that was used as input, there was a lot of discussion of the SRA meeting feedback. The overall conclusion was not to tweak the rules every year - especially on a change that was only in force for a year. The RC minutes reflect this.

I think it's fair to say this is continues to be an area of focus.

9B