On Friday, 16 November 2018 05:23:47 UTC+2, Andy Blackburn wrote:
Thanks for pointing that out. You are quite correct on the wording.

The arguments for and against the move to FAI Rules were crafted by proponents and opponents to the move. The specific argument against that you reference was based on the view from opponents that the FAI guidance on task mix tends to be adhered to in practice much more rigorously than a “do what makes the most sense to maximize completions” type of guidance. It would require a more rigorous analytical exercise to determine whether FAI Rules as currently constructed and interpreted result in more incomplete tasks than under US Rules, but that was the argument put to the US Pilot community. That, coupled with the contention that the US has fewer motorgliders, sustainers and competitors with crews, was the spirit behind the perspective that FAI Rules might result in more problematic offield landings and thereby lead to reduced participation.

I wish we had the resources to resolve all these issues analytically. We’d welcome statistical evidence from FAI-based contests that deviated significantly from the FAI guidelines. Certainly US rules based on FAI could employ local procedures that further emphasize completions as a goal if that was viewed as a positive feature by the pilot community.

Andy Blackburn
Chair, SSA Competition Rules Committee

That particular rule has been misread by many competition directors, even at WGC level. I've witnessed mass land-out on AST on hopeless day. Asked why was AAT not given afterwards. "The rules say so" was comp. directors answer.