Thanks, it was time to start a proper threa[d]. 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 thermalling, 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 snipped...

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.

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.

personal in-cockpit contest anecdote snipped...

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 [9B'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.

I tried to stay off my keyboard here, I really did, because - as I've noted
elsewhere - I've no skin in the contest-specific game. But as a sailplane
pilot with skin in the USA (not SUA, wry pedantic "clarification" noted)
*soaring* game, I feel the need to add my "+1"!!!

I, too, understand what BB is saying, and why he's tossed it out for
discussion. What I don't really understand is why the heartfelt apparent
non-acceptance of a "market solution" - i.e. non-rules-based approach - in
this particular instance. Perfection never being an option in human affairs,
identifying where "common sense ends" and "slippery slopes begin" is (choose
what applies & feel free to add your own): not an exact science; individual
judgment; an academic exercise; etc.

Color me genuinely perplexed and somewhat baffled by the "Proper Rules Can
Universally Fix Everything" school of thought...whether it be in soaring or
(gasp) government (at every level). Once "a generally acceptable minimum" of
rules exist, go play, live life, man up to your actions (both as an individual
and as a society), be personally accountable for your actions. The general
welfare of society will be enhanced, "unnecessary governance" will be minimized.

I'll go pretend I've taken my meds, now.

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com