Is the 200ft below Min Finish Height Rule Working?

"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.

9B"

Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.

TT




" The current rules for finish cylinders specify t
hat for the first 200 feet
below the minimum finish
height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of
20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet
below MFH, the pilot is
scored as if he landed out at the home ai
rport. The intent is to make it
transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont
inuing a marginal final glide.
However, it moves the end of the race for speed
points from landing at the airport to crossing a
point at MFH-200'.
Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish
cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):

A:
The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below
the finish height should be the same as the
penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.

B:
The penalty for crossing the finish
cylinder below the finish height
should be more severe than for
a high start, since safety as well
as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.

C:
Scoring for crossing the finish
cylinder below the fini
sh height should be the same as coming up
short on a line finish - if you come up short
you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for
instrument error)"

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:08:32 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:
"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.



9B"



Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.



TT









" The current rules for finish cylinders specify t

hat for the first 200 feet

below the minimum finish

height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of

20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet

below MFH, the pilot is

scored as if he landed out at the home ai

rport. The intent is to make it

transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont

inuing a marginal final glide.

However, it moves the end of the race for speed

points from landing at the airport to crossing a

point at MFH-200'.

Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish

cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):



A:

The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below

the finish height should be the same as the

penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.



B:

The penalty for crossing the finish

cylinder below the finish height

should be more severe than for

a high start, since safety as well

as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.



C:

Scoring for crossing the finish

cylinder below the fini

sh height should be the same as coming up

short on a line finish - if you come up short

you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for

instrument error)"


Hey Tim,

A few pilots do review the survey before it goes out. I'm sure there is room for improvement. I also thought the results were pretty clear. No, there was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues - it was intended to survey views on paths forward and overall objectives rather than a vote on a specific penalty structure which had plenty of detailed feedback provided already. The very specific structure of a rule is not practical to survey for in multiple-choice format. Verbatims help as do focus-group format discussions.

9B

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 8:26:55 PM UTC-7, wrote:
On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 5:08:32 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

"The process requires a pilot survey of any significant changes, rather than a r.a.s. discussion. I think that's prudent due process.







9B"







Andy, the problem was that this years survey was so poorly worded that there is no meaningful data to be had. I write exams for a living and I can tell you that this question was one of the worst ever written. I don't know if it was designed to confuse on purpose or just poorly written but the results from it told us nothing about what pilots actually thought about the new rules implemented with the hard deck. The survey has become a whole lot of double talk and the committee ignores clear results when they get it. Next year maybe they will ask a few pilots to review the survey before it goes out.







TT



















" The current rules for finish cylinders specify t



hat for the first 200 feet



below the minimum finish



height (MFH), the pilot receives a mild penalty of



20 points per 100 feet low. More than 200 feet



below MFH, the pilot is



scored as if he landed out at the home ai



rport. The intent is to make it



transparent to the pilot when he gets no points benefit from cont



inuing a marginal final glide.



However, it moves the end of the race for speed



points from landing at the airport to crossing a



point at MFH-200'.



Which philosophy do you favor? When a cylinder finish is used (i.e. task scoring ends at the finish



cylinder, with a specified minimum altitude):







A:



The penalty for crossing the finish cylinder below



the finish height should be the same as the



penalty for a high start, all the way to the ground.







B:



The penalty for crossing the finish



cylinder below the finish height



should be more severe than for



a high start, since safety as well



as fairness is a concern, but it should remain a linear penalty all the way to the ground.







C:



Scoring for crossing the finish



cylinder below the fini



sh height should be the same as coming up



short on a line finish - if you come up short



you are scored as a landout (with an allowance for



instrument error)"





Hey Tim,



A few pilots do review the survey before it goes out. I'm sure there is room for improvement. I also thought the results were pretty clear. No, there was not a deliberate attempt to obfuscate the issues - it was intended to survey views on paths forward and overall objectives rather than a vote on a specific penalty structure which had plenty of detailed feedback provided already. The very specific structure of a rule is not practical to survey for in multiple-choice format. Verbatims help as do focus-group format discussions.



9B

After reviewing the data the result's were very clear.

73% (168 out of 231) of the pilots voted that they wanted the points to go all the way to the ground. That is nearly 3/4 of the pilots said they DID NOT want a hard deck or any type of land out penalty imposed on those that crossed the finish line.

Rules committee please explain why we did not immediately reverse the land out rule on finishes when you saw these results? How much clearer do you need the data to be to react and rectify a rule that was not liked by 3 out of 4 pilots?

Tim Taylor

On Wednesday, January 22, 2014 9:41:04 PM UTC-8, Tim Taylor wrote:

Rules committee please explain why we did not immediately reverse the land out rule on finishes when you saw these results? How much clearer do you need the data to be to react and rectify a rule that was not liked by 3 out of 4 pilots?

Tim Taylor


Here's the explanation - my personal interpretation.

The survey included a question on the overall rule approach to get pilots' view of relative proportionality versus other penalties.

The least severe option as applied to a 1000' finish cylinder (which in my experience is the mode MSH currently in use) would invoke a penalty such that a rolling finish would get distance points. This is slightly more severe than your option - 0.5 points per foot (less a 100' buffer). It is more severe than the current rule for the first few hundred feet (I'd need to model it to get the crossover), less severe for middle altitudes and about the same for a rolling finish. We saw it as less severe overall.

The middle choice called for a more severe penalty than the start penalty - it did not specify how much more. Let's say 0.75 to 1.0 points per foot. For a 1,000' gate this would be 675-900 point penalty for a rolling finish. This was viewed as about the same as current option, since there are several hundred feet in the middle where the points penalties are close and we didn't assume pilots took it that the rules would ever penalize to a total score less than distance points.

The most severe option was a landout for being lower than MFH (allowing for altimeter error). This was viewed as more severe than the current option - mandatory landout for missing MFH.

So the summary was 1/4 for less severe, 1/2 for about the same and 1/4 for more severe. It wasn't just the survey that was used as input, there was a lot of discussion of the SRA meeting feedback. The overall conclusion was not to tweak the rules every year - especially on a change that was only in force for a year. The RC minutes reflect this.

I think it's fair to say this is continues to be an area of focus.

9B