Hard Deck

On Friday, February 9, 2018 at 9:57:46 AM UTC-8, BobW wrote:
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?


If you've not seen participants taking substantially higher risks in competition than they otherwise would, you haven't been to many competitions. Including but not limited to soaring competitions. As a pop metric, the Google search "taking risk in sports competition" returns 106 million results including countless academic papers studying the subject. That's one the the major reasons there are rules in competitions.

And - one more time - the rules may not have any effect on some competitors, but it prevents everyone else from having to do the same thing to be competitive. The argument that the individual pilot is solely responsible for their own safety was lost when parachutes were required, and the presence or lack of one has no possibility of affecting others scores or behavior.

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?


If you've not seen participants taking substantially higher risks in
competition than they otherwise would, you haven't been to many
competitions.

Man - while this may be an exercise in intellectually punching an infinitely
large pillow, the above response completely misses (ignores?) the point I was
seeking to make. I don't dispute the validity of accepting "higher risk in
competition" attitude as being a real thing. I simply am wondering if it is
being *seriously* argued that the simultaneously-at-issue (to Joe Competition
pilot) potential life-altering/-ending stakes associated with bozo OFL-related
decision-making are likely to be in any way brought *more* to his attention by
the presence of such a truly arcane rule than the physically omni-present and
unignorable facts of OFL life. I, for one, doubt it would, but if the
"Contestistas" want to find out, have at it!
- - - - - -

And - one more time - the rules may not have any effect on some
competitors, but it prevents everyone else from having to do the same
thing to be competitive.

Say what? I thought this canard had already been thoroughly debunked
up-thread, by more than one competition-experienced pilot. Maybe I missed it,
so feel free to tell me again how many "western U.S. competitions" have been
won due to the presence of those weak-but-sufficiently-consistent contest days
that were won by someone actually taking advantage of "below-proposed hard
deck" rules.
- - - - - -

The argument that the individual pilot is solely responsible for their own
safety was lost when parachutes were required, and the presence or lack of
one has no possibility of affecting others scores or behavior.

Equating mandated parachutes to a mandated hard deck seems a truly
torturous/"stretching" analogy to me, but in any event I wasn't aware I made
any such "parallel claim" (or argument or even vague suggestion) along that
line. I simply don't think the proposed rule will have any actual effect on
your western U.S. contest placings. I'll be leaving this thread now; my
pillow-punching demons have been exorcised.


Bob W.

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

Another reason for a hard deck - leaping elk.

http://www.wral.com/leaping-elk-cras...pter/17336678/

Andy Blackburn
9B