On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 8:15:48 AM UTC-8, Tango Eight wrote:
On Tuesday, January 20, 2015 at 9:10:14 AM UTC-5, wrote:

Now, I'll throw the gas. If the RC is serious about simplification, how about throwing out the complicated finish height provisions in the rules that lots of pilots really don't like?

Be still, my racing heart, it's only January!

Yeah, I know: this is about as likely as a free ASG-29 showing up in my driveway.

Nice daydream though.

T8

To really simplify you have to start nearly from scratch - typically because of interdependencies and accumulation of rules on top of rules. This is not without its perils.

It wasn't just onboard technology where simplification held sway this year. Simplification came up in the discussion of the interplay between having to land to restart a task (or not), the requirement to land at the airport post-finish (or not) and the ability to use the finish point as a MAT turnpoint (if it is designated a turnpoint). There is also a lot of complexity in creating special rules to accommodate motorgliders without conferring an unfair advantage (an eye of the beholder topic for sure). Maximum number of tows allowed, what and where a motorglider/sustainer can do an engine test run. It's a lot of figuring out the principle at stake and all the different scenarios that can occur that meet or violate the principle you're aiming for. In all of the above cases the RC opted for simplification after a boatload of analysis and discussion. Take a look and see what you think. Right direction or wrong direction to take provisions out.

More radical surgery is a more time-consuming task with even more tradeoffs.. Taking the sliding scale penalty off the finish has come up. The dirt-simple version is you either finish above MFH or you don't. In theory you could eliminate MFH altogether - 0 foot finishes at a mile or two - I guess that is literally dirt-simple. Not sure who would go for it. The finish line has been in the rules forever - doesn't get used much.

9B