Hard Deck

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:12:08 PM UTC-5, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 9:37:25 AM UTC-8, Mike the Strike wrote:

Karl said it for me! Any experienced cross-country pilot should be capable of making these decisions for themselves and not be subjected to an increasing barrage of restrictive rules. There are times when you can safely execute a low save (Helmut Reichmann describes one in his book) and times when you shouldn't even try. Similarly flying near mountain ridges where a rough thermal could toss you into the rocks but smooth ridge lift or weaker thermals might be safe. And if you can't properly plan and execute a final glide, you should take up another sport!

Mike

“One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity there ain’t nothing can beat teamwork.�
Mark Twain

what the hell did mark twain know. he was dumb enough to spend summers in elmira, when he could been in Uvalde or Hobbs.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 10:40:35 AM UTC-6, Karl Striedieck wrote:
This hard deck concept fits in with the liberal, big brother, zero pain concept emanating from DC that is gradually dumbing down and choking away individual freedoms in our lives. Same for the min cylinder finish height.
Pilots know that engaging in any activity that exceeds 10 mph or 10 feet high has an element of danger. Let the pilot decide whether to chance a landing in field with hidden fences, wires, holes, crops, or animals or climb out and fly home.
As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.

Karl Striedieck

Not a racer, but assigning a political "concept" one way or the other to a rule suggestion is one of the more ridiculous ideas I can think of. Do you really think there is an actual connection between the two? Or would it be better that it be taken at face value as an honest suggestion to improve safety. Nah, must come from someones agenda apparently. Maybe the connection you find is more about you than anything having to do with the rule suggestion.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 8:40:35 AM UTC-8, Karl Striedieck wrote:
As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on the score sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a back page score.

Karl Striedieck

On a day when most people can stay high, true. On a day when only a few make it home, not true. In a contest where that day determines the winner, a single low save can determine the winner.

That's why a scoring change might be able to accomplish the same goal: throwing out the low day score, or the high and low score of each contestant. Consistency counts for more, and would influence behavior some too - if a guy is at 500 ft and struggling he will just think, "I'll throw this one out" and execute a safe landing.

I'd like to think there is some middle ground between complete proscribed flight and the notion that making it back with all your blood inside and your heart still beating is defined as a safe flight.

I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

Am I the only one who sees the irony of two of the often expressed
views, Hard Deck vs. Dwindling Contest Participation?



On 1/30/2018 11:14 AM, wrote:
I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

--
Dan, 5J

That is in the face of most of the USofA law, you are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Try to tell that to a traffic court judge.......:-(

Totally I'm glad I'm not on the US TC, no matter what you do, you seem to be wrong.
I wonder how many are "lookers" vs. "contestants"?

I feel participants should drive the rules, not lookers.
No, I have not been contacted on rules for a few years, I have not been registered for a contest, only flew a day or so as, "edumacated baggage" as I wasn't current enough to be safe to me or others.

On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 1:14:58 PM UTC-5, wrote:
I propose a rule that says on every flight you are guilty of breaking the rule and get zero points. Until you have defended your IGC trace before a jury of your peers. Impartial jury of fellow competitors, that absolutely doesn't hate you because your trailer is ugly and your crew is pretty...

Just for clarity let me point out the above is sarcasm. Meant to mock those who would add rules, any rules.

Rules of golf: 200 pages
Sailing: 190 pages
Tennis: 38 pages
Soaring: 34 pages

Argument against rules is a red herring. Anyone using that as an excuse not to fly contests, I just don't buy it. If you can decipher an aeronautical chart you can figure out the rules of soaring.

At 18:02 30 January 2018, jfitch wrote:
On Tuesday, January 30, 2018 at 8:40:35 AM UTC-8, Karl
Striedieck wrote:
As for the worry that a low save gives the pilot an advantage on
the
scor=
e sheet, forget it. Such events eat up a lot of time and result in a
back
p=
age score.=20
=20
Karl Striedieck

On a day when most people can stay high, true. On a day when
only a few
mak=
e it home, not true. In a contest where that day determines the
winner, a
s=
ingle low save can determine the winner.=20

That's why a scoring change might be able to accomplish the same
goal:
thro=
wing out the low day score, or the high and low score of each
contestant.
C=
onsistency counts for more, and would influence behavior some
too - if a
gu=
y is at 500 ft and struggling he will just think, "I'll throw this one
out"=
and execute a safe landing.=20

I'd like to think there is some middle ground between complete
proscribed
f=
light and the notion that making it back with all your blood inside
and
you=
r heart still beating is defined as a safe flight.


George Moffat and the sailing crowd have always proposed to drop
both the individual pilot's best and worst days because "that's what
they do in sailing". You might be able to do that in a Grand Prix
format where each day counts the same. I don't see how we can do
that as long as we have devalued days. A pilot can be a day winner
on a very difficult 600 point day, and be forced to drop his
day win because all of the other contest days weren't devalued,
even though he had another day where he only got 850 points
compared to that other day's winner?

Please tell me how you propose to make that fair?? I can't see it
being done without a total overhaul of the scoring system.

RO

John Good's very clever and very simple "worst day scoring adjustment" allowed you effectively to drop a day, but in a way that worked with devaluation. It was in the rules for many years, but nobody ever used it, so it got dropped in a simplification effort. If any contest wants to try it, the rule is sitting there and implemented in the scoring program, so ask for a waiver. I won't explain again here how it works, but yes it does take in to account day devaluation, and short contests.

John Cochrane