On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:51:00 AM UTC-7, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 11:36:35 AM UTC-7, Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot) wrote:
Low time pilot, lack of currency, lack of time in the ship, the decision point on "when to land" changes.

Our longtime rule was, "40+hrs that season in that ship before the first contest day. That sorta got you up the bubble of learning so the rear of the brain was automatically flying so you could concentrate on where to go next.

Change of pace........

Another contest site example.......

Dansville, NY, returning from the SE, look up Avoca as an airport in the valley heading towards Dansville.
Local conventional wisdom is, "if you're coming up the valley and clear the valley by a few hundred feet, you have the airport made".
The valley drops off enough so a 35:1 or better glider can follow the slope, clear the town, make the airport.
In the "olden days", this was fine.
With newer current minimum finish heights, you need a bit more over the valley crest to not bust minimums at the finish line.

Granted, if there is much of any NW wind, the right side of the dropoff may put you on the backside of the ridge on the way to town.
Trust me, it's not fun in that case.

There is the front lawn of a hospital just before town, totally landable if you are sorta sharp, been there twice. Pass the lawn, it gets real ugly until over the airport fence, this why I landed on the lawn twice maybe 3/4 mile from the airport.

The new minimum numbers would likely land quite a few doing that route that can be safe, but low.

Another return is from the south/SSW from Hornel, you can fall off a higher valley floor, run through small gorges with fields all over on the way to the airport. Great landing sites (better than going over the town......) but still likely to bust suggested minimums.

I am not aware of any broken gliders in either case over the years.
I am not for or against the proposed suggested rules change.
Just pointing out some "flatlander" situations that may be impacted by a "minimum valley clearance height".

Not trying to argue or defend myself, just adding specific info to the discussion.

Charlie, There are two points I would make: By my proposal, if there is an out to lower ground (300 ft lower), then that is not a violation. Second, by my proposal, the CD always has discretion. To the extent that this is a standard safe route, as you describe it, your CD would not penalize you for unsafe flying.

I should also add, if this is a ridge flying scenario, you probably aren't stopping to turn. So by my protocol, there is not a problem flying through that area or even landing at the hospital unless you were doing a thermalling turn below 300 ft.