On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:17:54 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 1:11:22 PM UTC-5, krasw wrote:
I have not read a single sound argument against hard deck altitude in this thread, not a single one. Makes me think we should implement it in international level.

Actually, I've heard sound arguments on both sides of this debate, both sides. Makes me think you're being sarcastic.

I respect John's proposing a concept he believes will help save lives. I originally thought the hard deck was some number above the estimated terrain altitude similar to the Altitude AGL field on my TopHat flight computer (based on the terrain altitudes in the mapping database).

But I think John is proposing big blocks of airspace, SUA style, that establish a horizontal plane over some swath of terrain below which we could not fly without incurring a penalty. That plane might be as little as a few hundred feet or less above a local high point or as much as thousands of feet above low and/or unlandable spots.

Would these new SUAs be different for Standard/15M Class vs. 18 Meter vs. Open Class, since the ability to glide out to a safe landing varies?

One of the challenges (consulting-speak for "problems") I see is navigating over these planes. We wouldn't be able to see them. Perfectly adequate clearance over the terrain under a nice-looking cloud or fast-climbing gaggle might, in fact, be under the hard deck by the time I glide there. Yes, the same is true for actual terrain but at least I can eyeball that on the way and make adjustments (proceed at slower speed, climb in weak lift, turn back).

Under the current rules, the Rules Committee has judged--probably not without reason--that it's unwise to allow us to overfly restricted/controlled airspace because we might not be able to glide out beyond the outer border. So all of those areas extend from their floors up to infinity for scoring purposes; i.e., we can fly under but not over.

The reverse is true in this proposal. It's not only OK to fly over these new "restricted" areas (i.e., the airspace below the hard deck), it's mandatory. The challenges I've mentioned--e.g., how to deal with unexpected sink or assess whether you can clear the edge of the airspace many miles ahead--exist with the actual terrain but at least you can see it without looking inside the cockpit every few seconds to check.

As anyone knows who has ever tried to stay under the start cylinder ceiling or climb out the top or climbed up next to P-40 at the R4N contest (FYI: P-40 is the prohibited area over Camp David, which extends out within a very short distance of the last, sun-facing, into-wind slope to climb up on the way home late in the afternoon, and into which the wind tends to drift you unless you keep opening up your circle), this requires a fair amount of attention if the margin is close. I can also see some analogies with the safety finish, which seems to continue to confuse pilots though they seldom encounter it.

Chip Bearden

SUA space is no different than any obstacle. Your flight computer tells you if you are going to clear the far edge. If it doesn't, I can suggest about 5 flight computers that will. We already do this in Minden/Truckee/Air Sailing, overflying the Reno SUA. If you drop into it on the way you are DSQ'd.. It's just like flying over a high unlandable plateau which do exist out here in the west. Before you start across, make sure you can get to the other side. Again, violating SUA gets you a penalty or no points, violating the plateau gets you death. The hard deck would not be possible without GPS and flight computers - but guess what, they're here to stay.