On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 9:41:14 AM UTC-7, Nick Kennedy wrote:
Just my opinion, but I'm opposed to ANY hardedck rules.
It just adds another layer of complexity and point of contention.
Pilots need to be responsible for there actions.
If some guy can pull it off the ground at very low level...thats OK with me.
And Look at the non-trend of accidents over the last 50 years, the summary's are all basically the same:
Launch fatality's
Landing fatality's
CFIT fatalities
Poor assembly fatalities.
The numbers go up and down a bit each year, but if you look back at say 1965-1970 and compare that to say 2000- 2005 its about the same.
Look at the recent fatality at Seminole, the guys tow fails for some reason at I think 500' and he kills himself.
Same Sh*t different day.

Gaggles are a problem.
One change I've seen is task callers are much better at not calling tasks with head on legs in there, after that fatality in Uvalde..
Fly safe in 2020
Nicl
T

"Pilots need to be responsible for there actions." This is fine if you want contests to be about who is least risk averse. There is no doubt that outlanding in unsuitable fields are a significant risk in contest flying. Implementing a hard deck as John described is not technically difficult to do, fly, or score, the capability is already implemented in most glide computers. The complexity is a sunk cost for everyone except the contest organizers (a one time/site task of creating the SUA file). Pilots are against it because they like the risk and excitement of the low save and flight over unlandable terrain - or are willing to engage in it to increase their score. If we wish a sailplane race to include as a component a test of low save skill, then so be it. A bit like Russian Roulette though, which I can play at home for far less cost.