On Thursday, February 1, 2018 at 8:18:45 AM UTC-8, John Cochrane wrote:
Lots of speculation that low altitude thermaling doesn't happen. I don't know if it's thermaling or misbehavior, but two good examples of actual very low altitude maneuvering in one of my last safety reports here
http://www.ssa.org/files/member/2013...ety_Report.pdf

Overall, landouts are by far the greatest single source of crashes, and landout traces reveal lots of very low altitude decision making and maneuvering. By pilots of all sorts of skill and experience levels. Crashes are not just for beginners. Think of all the top pilots we have lost over the years. Overall according to Knauff about one in 10 off field landings results in serious damage.

The point of hard deck isn't really to attract newcomers. To the extent they care about safety, they will come when the numbers get better, not when the rules change. Existing pilots barely know the rules, newcomers aren't really that attuned. My sense of OLC pilots is that they mostly just want longer flights, not to fly 3 hours on a 6 hour day. We might be able to help there.

Really the only issue here is what part of the air do we use for racing? We have decided that we don't use air above 17,500' and in or over class B, C, restricted, even if the pilot can legally use such airspace, and we do not leave that to pilot decision. We have decided that we don't use clouds, and we also do not leave that to pilot decision by banning cloud flying instruments. Every power pilot faces altitude limits, for example IFR minimums on landings; the FAA doesn't say "use your judgement." Every race has a course, you must leave a start gate in this defined piece of airspace, defined laterally and vertically and by time, you must get to this turnpoint airspace, you must conclude your flight in this airspace, defined laterally and vertically, if you want contest points. You are of course free to ignore any of these restrictions as pilot in command, you just won't get contest points for it.

So, given all these quite sensible existing limitations on what airspace you can use to gain contest points, does the race stop at, say, 500 feet, or does the race and ability to accumulate points go all the way to the ground? Historically there was no way to limit the race course. Now SUA files, computers that display pressure altitude, make it trivial to do so. The question is do we want to do it. I see no reason to give contest points for anything a pilot chooses to do below about 500 feet. At that point, given historical statistics, the pilot is in a very stressful situation, and must use his full capabilities as PIC. I don't think tipping the scales with points is wise.

And it's selfish. I do low saves. I want to win contests. Every pilot who wants to win contests does so. I have dug out from 300 feet. Yes, right on final to a great field. I would be happy to agree, I won't beat you this way if you don't beat me this way. Even if it has no actual effect on crash numbers, I just see no defense for defining the race box to include anything under 500 feet.

(That SGP is negotiating over single meters in their altitude limits is an interesting counterpoint to this discussion!)

John Cochrane

I agree with John, and add that I cannot understand the distinction between existing airspace rules and a 500' exclusion. Yes it is one more. Is one more bad and one less good? Then let's also get rid of altitude, finish line heights, cloud restrictions, SUA restrictions. Like an un-drug tested Olympics. See just how crazy people will get. I'm guessing that a number of people in this discussion would like to see that.