On Oct 22, 10:21*am, JJ Sinclair wrote:
I expected this discussion to center around the continued use of the
finish gate in US competition, not the math involved. I believe the 50
foot finish line was made unnecessary with the incorporation of the
GPS finish cylinder. I also believe the continued use of the finish
line exposes the SSA to potential liability involved in using a system
that clearly violates FAR's in that the contestant is flying within
500 feet of people, vehicles and structures while not in the act of
landing. Comments from the rules committee?
JJ


JJ -

I have not read Martin's articles, yet.
This one took a hard course correction away from the thread name.

I am not/have never been on the Rules Committee, but ran contests at
sites where low finishes were allowed. Our local interpretation,
based on premises and traffic, were that a no-floor then low-floor
finish line was oriented in a location that DID comply with FARs.
Other locations had different premises and administration.

There was plenty of opportunity to race AND comply with FARs at my
events.

And pilots who chose to not cooperate with those restrictions got
handed significant point penalties, including a demotion from first
place to also-ran.

I don’t think the low-finish to cylinder change had much to do with a
perception of SSA liability exposure. I think it had more to do with
trying to legislate “common sense”, ‘equitable’ competition, and
flight safety for perceived mid-air risks. But you should ask the
other John . . . I think he was front row in the discussion then.

Cindy B
www.caracolesoaring.com