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