On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 3:33:38 PM UTC-7, jfitch wrote:
On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 1:39:31 PM UTC-8, Per Carlin wrote:
Are we not trying to overcomplicate things again with this sua-file?

With this file do we remove the responsibility to fly safe from the pilot to the CD. It is the pilot who decides what is safe and what is not, anykind of rules should not take over this responibility. But it should remove the gain of stupidity. And what will happens if the CD makes the sua-file wrong. Who to blame, the pilot or the CD?

An easier solution would be to stop counting distance points from 300m(~100feet) AGL of your outlanding. If you landout do you get max distance of the logg where you are at least 300m above the landing. The hard deck can be defined i local procedures according to actuall terrain as in Big forrest areas should the level be increase compared to the flatland with large agricultures.


This would not take out the thrill of an low save, but it will stop you from making studid glides on low level to gain thoose valuble extra points as each km gives you. Thoose glides are a real problem, current rules promotes stupidity to glide as far as possible when the outlanding is unaviodable. Each extra km can be 4 points, 10km can be 40points and that can be the difference to be on the podium or not at a WGC. So how are you gonna spend your last 300m, make a pattern and loose the medal or continue and win the game?

With rules that stops giving you distance points does not remove the pilots resposibility but it take away the gain on doing something stupid.

/Per Carlin

Isn't that just a hard deck set at 300m AGL? Doesn't it have all the same critics as the SUA file version? You still can't see it, it still eliminates the 200' ridge crossings. You are still going to circle in P3's half knotter if you see yourself falling below it.

We have at least on instance of the SUA version, the Reno Class C. It's an irregular (but well known) shape, and large. It is overflown frequently in contests, and has been that way for about 20 years. There've been people DSQ'd for dropping into it. I've not heard any complaints or problems with it.

It's significantly different Jon. No new rules have to be created. No new SUA files have to be created.

Because it is precisely ground referenced, it can be much lower (my suggestion 300 ft vs John's hard deck suggestion of 500 to 1000 ft). That makes for essentially no impact on all of the scenarios. For any sensible pilot a ground referred 300 ft rule does not impede or confuse any flying behavior.. It is assuredly the case that you and I would have made the chose to land before that point -- not so with an altitude based and variable 500 to 1000 ft rule.

I agree that it is not accurately knowable in the cockpit. But with a 300 ft ground referenced rule, that makes essentially no difference. Nobody will need to game a 300 ft rule.