On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:01:01 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.

The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.

Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.

These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.

Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.

Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.

Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.

John Cochrane


why do i get that same creepy big brother feeling every time john proposes something. i feel like the hard deck would do exactly what government does sometimes. trying to protect everyone all the time by imposing increasingly restricting laws is not the answer.

i attempted a circle at 600 feet over luscombe acres (TSA) once . when the lift just wasnt solid enough i used good sense, hung it up and landed safely. we don't need a hard deck if everyone would stick to reasonable personal minimums.

you can't fix stupid though. have you considered this: some people might even continue to try and thermal after getting landed out by the hard deck to keep their expensive craft out of a field. i know under the right circumstances i would if i thought i could get away safely and avoid a retrieve.

so what are we trying to solve here? pressure to do stupid stuff by contest points to be had? people don't only thermal low because they're pressured by contest points. they also don't want to have to deal with a retrieve, and they wanna keep their shiny toy out of a potentially damaging field. it's why people buy sustainers. you cant save everyone. this is aviation, people need to rely on their own skill and sound decision making in the moment to stay safe, wherever and however they are able. for mountain and ridge site the hard deck is a nightmare and doesn't cover all risks. there's no way to design it that covers all phases of flight within proximity of terrain without fundamentally ruining the way that sort of flying is done. see andy blackburn's comments about ridges less than 500 feet high. you make whole ridges unflyable. look at may 23rd 2006 sports class nationals at mifflin. Liz S and i flew the ridge just north of shamokin, and it's top is 400 feet about the valley floor in many spots.

i used to love the finish line. as a kid i'd watch the gliders pass 30 feet overhead dumping water on me and the uvalde ramp. the temporary relief from the heat, and the excitement of watching such a magnificent craft skate just overhead was pure magic. I swear to god if you taint mifflin....

And if you can't fix people cirlcing within proximity of a mountain face, why endeavor to eliminate circle down near the valley floor. i guarantee more accidents happen high up along mountain faces where the proposed hard deck isn't in effect.

i get what you're saying, but i flat don't agree and i don't think it will improve accident records or prevent all bad behavior that it's intending to stop.

ND