I don't know whether I understand John's proposal better or if he's modifying it in the process of these online negotiations.
I re-read his "Contest Safety" presentation again, which I had downloaded earlier. I also visited his Web site and read his contest safety reports to the Rules Committee for 2011, 2012, and 2013 for the first time. If you haven't, you really should:
https://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/joh...ring/index.htm
My impression was that he has been calling for a series of SUA files to implement a hard deck over most of a contest envelope. I think that is a hopelessly complex technical solution that, like GPS and FLARM, might actually have some negative unintended consequences because it would focus our attention more inside the cockpit than it already is, would complicate decision making when low thereby ironically increasing stress at a bad time, and could encourage pilots to thermal at the edges of the SUA motivated by the points penalty if they didn't and lulled into a possible false sense of security so long as they were above the hard deck.
But after reading all four truly sobering documents (that reflect an impressive amount of work), I understand John's frustration. Most contest accidents are avoidable, and not simply by choosing not to fly contests. I still don't agree that wholesale SUAs to create a layer of hard decks over most of a contest arena is the right solution. But I would hate to see us ignore the potential for discouraging ill-advised behavior at specific, known, high-risk locations by implementing altitude minimums selectively. And that's how I read what he is proposing now.
That also seems to have been where he began (from his 2011 report): "We should allow and encourage contest organizers to set up minimum altitudes over well‐known trouble spots, passes, or tempting unlandable terrain. These would be included in the SUA file, and falling below the minimum altitude triggers a substantial penalty.*Both crashes at Logan involved skimming over passes quite low (or trying to), and previous crashes at Mifflin have involved the same issue.**Specific well‐traveled and tricky passes are good places for a minimum altitude."
It's interesting that some have proposed a steering turn to take Sergio's Elevator off the table. If it's OK to discourage the use of that strategy via a steering turnpoint, why is it not OK to implement the same thing with a very narrowly defined SUA file? I haven't flown it but it sounds like the backside ridge south of New Castle: i.e., stay above the ridgetop in case you have to bail out and everything is fine. Dropping below ridgetop is another thing entirely.
Another candidate could be prohibiting thermaling below 500' over the home airport. We've all watched pilots struggle at 200' or 300' trying to avoid a relight but mostly causing anxiety and traffic congestion.
We just have to be cautious. For one reason, John raised a great question in the speaker notes of his 2002 PPT): "Interesting that so much of this [spate of accidents] is in the 90s. Is the great precision of GPS leading to smaller margins?"
Yes. I know so. That's not the same as saying that smaller margins have led to more accidents. But I suspect there's a correlation. Likewise FLARM--which I believe should be mandatory in contests--has had the inevitable effect of lulling some pilots into not paying as much attention to other aircraft, relying on the technology to take care of collision warnings.
So I worry about the potential to create new problems with a broad, rather than very selective, imposition of SUAs.
Another reason for caution is that this might unfairly impact the top and/or local pilots who can use their experience and knowledge to do things the rest of us can't (or think we can't, or can't do safely). Rewarding a pilot for taking an unwise risk seems wrong. But rewarding a pilot for superior skill is what it's all about.
Yes, this could be the first step down a slippery slope to flying contests in the equivalent of an aerobatic "box" with artificially imposed vertical and lateral limits that would drastically curtail the type of flying we enjoy today. Some (including yours truly) might argue we're already on that slope with the finish cylinder (oh, well....).
But reading about some of the incidents in John's reports is depressing. And thought provoking. And now I can understand his frustration better.
Just a thought to keep the discussion going!
Chip Bearden