9B wrote:
I would argue that it is an open question whether having
a T&B on board would give many pilots extra "courage" to fly into
questionable conditions, thinking if something bad happened they could
always turn on the old T&B. This sort of pilot logic of course
nullifys much of the intent of the rule in the first place. How that
would balance out from an overall safety perspective (more risky
behavior with greater ability to mitigate bad outcomes) is impossible
to judge a priori.

There's ample precedent for this type of conundrum: e.g., GPS
navigation. Legalizing GPS receivers for contests leveled the playing
field and was touted as increasing safety because pilots would always
know where the closest airport was and whether they could [probably]
glide there. On the other hand, this eliminated a skill (i.e.,
navigation) that many believed was an integral part of soaring. And
similar to flying in marginal weather without blind flying
instruments, those who were more accomplished at navigation could, pre-
GPS, use this skill to fly more aggressively than others with equal
safety. Ironically, post GPS, ALL pilots could engage in more
aggressive behavior than they might otherwise have attempted: e.g.,
marginal final glides.

The Rules Committee decided the benefits of GPS receivers (including,
not incidentally, flight recorders) tilted the decision in their
favor. Another factor was the difficulty of policing pilots who could
easily slip a GPS receiver into their pockets before takeoff.
Regarding blind flying instruments, I suspect the overriding factor
would be that this type of flying is difficult for gliders to do
legally in the U.S. and impossible in a contest. Many would say the
ability to enter clouds is not a skill we wish to evaluate. Those who
have flown in past contests outside the U.S. that permitted cloud
flying might disagree. In any event, the Rules Committee appears to
have drawn the line firmly: having an operable T&B on board "just in
case" is not an option.

But that's apparently not what AK was requesting. As for letting
individual Competition Directors make the call on disabling vs.
covering vs. removal, I prefer guidance from the Rules Committee. I
have the utmost respect for those who tackle the difficult job of CD
but anyone who has flown a few contests knows that each has his/her
unique opinions. Sometimes these can be controversial; e.g., the CD
who decreed that notwithstanding the general practice that any airport
on the Sectional chart was eligible for the 25 point airport landout
bonus, in his contest only those airports with paved runways (all of
which were turnpoints) qualified. The organizers feared being sued by
a pilot who landed at any of the numerous private strips,
groundlooped, and then blamed them for not knowing the grass hadn't
been cut in six months! Or the CD who decreed that the airspace under
a Class C was ineligible (the Rules only prohibited flight in or over
a Class C) despite there being several attractive landout airports
just inside the edge. I well remember the stir that went through the
crowd when they were told, rather flippantly, "There are plenty of
good fields up there." I have more stories and I'm sure other pilots
do, too.

For something like this, better to get input from the Rules Committee
who generally does an admirable job of analyzing these issues and
acting.

Chip Bearden
ASW 24 "JB"
USA