John,

I was included on an email discussion thread which included the email which I posted last night. I thought it was important and decided to post here and invite broader discussion. I did not have "permission." I think the ID of the author is unimportant. I take responsibility for the post but also want to make sure that everyone knows that the (in my opinion excellent) email itself was not written by me. I cannot take credit for that.

The intent of posting is absolutely NOT to call the RC into question. I think the RC is doing an excellent job of managing the various "special interests" and trying to address safety issues and manage the rules with an eye towards fun, growth & attendance. I have deep respect for the job the RC does and has done even though I have clearly complained about some rules from time to time.

I agree, the 700 margin that is currently provided by the rule is probably to low. Here is my logic...

I think there are two basic options: 1) raise the height 2) lower the penalty (option 3 is to remove the rule entirely...but I am deeply concerned about that idea)

The problem with lowering the penalty is that the average contest pilot is (whether he/she admits it or not) going to fight to avoid a 25 points penalty, let alone 400. Getting the penalty formula "just right" so that the penalty is high enough to produce the desired behavior (encouraging the contest pilot to build in a greater risk buffer height before embarking on final glide) yet low enough to encourage the pilot to safely finish straight ahead if final glide degrades into the penalty zone is going to be VERY DIFFICULT for the RC and contest pilots to "negotiate". ;-)

I think some pilots would circle outside of the finish cylinder was finish penalty altitude was 200 ft and the penalty was 5 points. Its just the nature of competition and the fact that most of us get away with it.

Therefore we need enough margin to allow for safe circling outside the finish cylinder for this rule to not have "side effects" which are creating unintended risks. If there is a penalty, pilots are going to fight to avoid it. It's just that simple.

Sean

On Monday, January 20, 2014 11:24:53 AM UTC-5, wrote:
If you read the actual original post, rather than just say "finishes again, let's blast the durn rules committee" it is quite interesting.



It documents pilots doing crazy things -- thermaling at low altitudes -- in return for a few points to get over the finish height.





I am often told, "pilots can make their own decisions, they won't do stupid things just because a few points are on the table." This post and associated data (if we see it) document the opposite.



So, if you think about it, these observations make a strong case for raising the height. OK, if when "close" they're going to do nutty things, we had better move the ground down another 500 feet, so with a finish at 1000 feet, even these dumbbells will have a cushion. If anything, these observations call for a hard deck, or at least a hard deck in the last 5 miles, to remove the temptation these pilots are obviously falling prey to, to do silly things.



It is mighty, mighty hard to go from these observations to the conclusion that moving everything down 500 feet, to putting the same cliff in points at 1 inch above the barbed wire fence at the edge of the airport, rather than 500 feet over the ground, makes it more safe. Then the same pilots thermaling at 550 feet, 1 mile from finish will thermal at 50 feet, 1 mile from finish. Like they did in the good old days, producing the good old days accident reports.



A minor ethical quibble. I saw this post by its original author, who asked me for comment, which I did, privately. Sean, did the author give you permission to pass it on to RAS, anonymously?



John Cochrane