On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 2:37:52 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
"my point exactly Karl! the hard deck does nothing to prevent pilots from attempting climb-outs. "

Once again, the point of the hard deck is not to "prevent" anything. If the pilot in command thinks a climb out is a good idea, he/she should do it. If the pilot in command prefers to land, he/she should do it. The only point of the hard deck is to REMOVE an incentive given by the rules to do one or the other. The point of the hard deck is to leave the pilot in command alone to make a good decision. Often a climb-out is the right decision. Go for it!

John cochrane

but so i don't understand john, that sounds a little flimsy or at the very least downright bureaucratic. pardon me for seeming obstinate, but if the hard deck doesn't prevent anything, and people will still have low level mishaps, then the hard deck won't improve contest safety records. if it doesn't do that, then why complicate things with this proposed rule? simply in the name of absolving the competition rules of blame? that's absurd.

anyway, we already have to sign a "WAIVER OF CLAIMS, ASSUMPTION OF LIABILITY, AND INDEMNITY AGREEMENT". that's me the pilot saying that i'm legally responsible for my actions and their consequences.

the person to blame for getting smoked by circling at low altitude is always the PIC, never the rules or the contest organizers. the rules never force my hand to do anything.