There are many variables here, but not least experience and ability to
manage workload in the cockpit.

1) What do you consider a low save?
2) What terrain are you flying over? Big fields with lots of options or
small fields with stone walls or barbed wire?
3) Have you the experience to prioritize your actions an apportion your
work load accordingly.
4) Are you flying a flapped aircraft you could land on a postage stamp or
an 18m un-flapped slippery air frame?

From personnel experience my low saves in my Cirrus or 27 are much lower
than those in the club Duo.

In the Duo I am in the circuit committed to landing much higher than I
would in the 27.

Considering the above and to put it in context (in the same scenario,
heights, etc), flying the 27 I would already have the wheel down and would
have my field / fields selected but would be focused on getting away secure
in the knowledge that I have my field landing plan in place.

At 16:34 01 April 2016, BobW wrote:
Thought I'd start a new thread, kinda-sorta forked off one "festering" in
"The
Boy Who Flew With Condors" thread (which I re-watched last night for the
first
time in decades; cool!)...

On the card is a Grudge Match between two (irreconcilable?) schools of
thought. Will there be a WINNAH?!?

In one corner of the thought ring we have "Sensible Caution," while in the

other corner we have "Dangerously (some will say, "Irresponsibly"!)
Encouraging Personal Limits Expansion." The topic itself is LOW SAVES -
are

they Killers or are they a Usefully Necessary XC Skill?

Offering expert commentary and analysis so far have been conflicted dustah

pilot, Mr. Agcatflyr, who can't seem to decide whether to live in the
frozen
wastes of North Dakotah or the flesh-eating swamps of southern Alabammer,
and,
the scion of the great Flubber fortune! Gentlemen - please continue your
thoughtful and thought-provoking analyses!!!

But seriously, kids, this philosophic aspect of "safe flight" has
intrigued
me
since before I began taking flight lessons. How safe is "safe enough?" Is

life-continuing safety rigidly definable through numbers? Is there a "best

way" to go about inculcating safety into and throughout the licensed
pilot
family?

Let's keep the discussion focused by considering ONLY the topic of "low
altitude saves," sooner or later something every XC-considering sailplane

pilot - having the slightest of imaginations - will consider, and (by
definition) will soon actually have to DO, once undertaking XC, whether
such
XC occurs pre-planned or not.

For better or worse, the FAA is of little numerical help on this front.
More
to the point, the first two shared-between-glider-n-power GA fields I
found

myself glider-based at had 200' DIFFERENT "recommended pattern altitudes":

1000' agl and 800' agl. Having obtained my license at the 1000' agl
pattern

field, encountering the 800' agl pattern field as a low-time, newbie,
stranger, lacking the comforting mental embrace of a
personally-knowledgeable,
mutually-trusting-instructor, was conumdric: should I fly at the 800' agl

pattern field using the "When in Rome" philosophy of life, thereby also
definitionally and arbitrarily throwing away 20% of my entrained "pattern

safety altitude?" Or should I defy those crazed madmen flying from the
new-to-me field and fly "as safely as I'd been sensibly taught?"

For better or worse, I opted for the "When in Rome" approach, reasoning it

reduced the theoretical chances of a "descending onto someone else"
mid-air,
while shifting to me 100% of the responsibility for not killing myself by

augering in due to a "dangerously thin ground clearance" margin. (I've
always
felt that way about augering in! Long before Nancy Reagan took credit for
the
catchphrase, "Just say no!" I'd appropriated that same philosophy
regarding

killing myself in a sailplane. )

So who's right? Which school of thought is "better"? Let's the contest
begin!!!

Bob W.

P.S. To jumpstart the discussion, know upfront that my "personal safety
philosophies" embrace portions of both schools of thought, and - so I
think
-
in a non-conflicting manner. And - so far - I've had only one known-to-me

instance when a fellow pilot took serious issue with my flying...and his
back-seater later privately told me he disagreed with the PIC's take. It
seems
"absolute agreement" on the safety front is tough to find among
reasonable
people!