Stupid stuff usually does not win contests. Our winners are tremendously talented pilots. Occasional sporting risks are part of the game. One landout, aborted flight through thunderstorm, etc. will lose a contest. So, usually, avoid such problems. But when you have to go, you have to go.

The hard deck case is not about winners doing dumb things while the rest of us sane people sit around and grumble. It's about the many risks that non-winners seem to take when the points clock is on, and do not take when the points clock is off.

It's an interesting contrast. Everywhere else in aviation we seem to have this concept. Minimums for an IFR approach, or you go around, are pretty hard and fast. I don't see vast complaining about this encroachment on the pilots' freedom or judgement.

The FAA's rule which is even a law against busting minimums, with penalties.. The hard deck proposes no such force or penalty. It would be as if airlines gave pilots a $1000 bonus for landing on time, no matter what the weather, and we are proposing, hey, why don't we take the bonus off the table when reported cloudbase is below 500 feet.

John Cochrane