Yes, a lot of the point of hard deck is to move the whole decision-making chain upward. Now you treat 2000' AGL as you used to treat 1000' AGL, at least for sporting purposes.

On whether it actually will change behavior, this thread has produced a classic example of cognitive dissonance -- holding two contrary ideas in mind at one time.

A) No pilot is so dumb they're thinking about points below 1000'. (Both positive and negative -- the lure of getting home is so strong they will screw around down low without points, and pilots are so sensible they wouldn't screw around down low just for points)

B) Pilots will spend all their time watching the instruments trying to figure out if they have busted the minimum. Just to draw out the logic, that behavior only results if you think that pilots indeed are concerned entirely about points, and making all decisions at 550 feet with that in mind.

General: We have spent too much time on "low saves." That's really not the issue. As I looked at many traces of off field landing accidents in contests, what's clearly going on is very low and late decision making. Whether hoping for a low save or for other reasons, failing to follow the usual advice that below 600 feet forget about everything else and land is the key issue. In not one of the traces I have seen - which all ended in damage -- did the pilot start a sensible downwind at 600 feet, base, final. It's all mad dash low altitude and low speed maneuvering.


John Cochrane