Hard Deck

But my main problem is the "heading out over sketchy areas" and has little
to do with 500' saves. I've seen it many times and this is the worry
expressed by my non-racing pilot friends. A rule discouraging that might
encourage a closer look at viable landing sites pre-contest and that would
be a good thing. Many out west which look good on paper or from the air
will soil your pants if you walk the ground.

Man! I guess we all have a need to worry about SOME thing or other. I got my
license in MD; wound up doing the bulk of my soaring (and OFLs) west of
Amarillo (TX) and east of central Utah. MY biggest worry was/remains being
able to fly the same ship tomorrow. Amazingly, that worry kept me from
"heading out over sketchy areas"...at least when I had the slightest doubt
that my "tomorrow" goal was at risk if I did so. Soared over the oilfields
west of Hobbs, above/across the Texas breaks of the Canadian River, throughout
most of central CO mountains...IOW, above LOTS of "essentially unlandable
terrain." My worst OFL accident has been a dirt-clod-poked-hole in my 1-26's
fabric when in my early-on, tyronic, ignorance I failed to comprehend until
short final, there was a *difference* between "freshly plowed" and
"plowed/harrowed/raked" brown fields. (Doh!)

Somehow, I doubt something as arcane as the "contest hard deck" being
discussed in this thread will have "an obviously measurable effect" on the
quantity of busted ships if in fact "the worry expressed by my non-racing
pilot friends" is insufficient to prevent them from (apparently) acknowledging
that worry (and presumably, soaring with that acknowledgement in mind) when
they are NOT participating in a contest, yet NOT flying similarly should they
enter a contest. I respectfully suggest anyone knowing such XC pilots point
out to them that logical disconnect if they ever DO choose to fly in a contest
and continue to reason similarly. What am I missing? Are (arguably,
often-casually read/absorbed/understood by non-podium-contenders) contest
rules *seriously* considered a more powerful influence on pilot behavior than
the obvious, immediate, economic-/health-risks "imminently-possible downsides"
associated with every off-field landing?

Bob - color me genyoowinely puzzled - W.

P.S. For the record, I'm not trying to re-generate the previously-plowed
intellectual ground debating "anarchy vs. rules." I understand "the general
need for rules" - Hey! I happen to like our U.S. Constitution, f'r'example,
wry chuckle. What's swimming about somewhat amorphously in my skull are
thoughts along the lines of: "bureaucratic complexity," "diminishing returns,"
choosing to *very*-indirectly address a (training) problem, etc.

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