On Thursday, February 8, 2018 at 5:18:01 PM UTC-8, Andy Blackburn wrote:
“There are two separate aspects to the hard deck. One is to attempt to prevent some behavior. This is in my opinion a fools errand.”

I think we agree on that.

“The other is to keep from tempting others to that behavior who would not ordinarily engage, because it is rewarded with a win.....You are doing well on the 13th day, but choose not to thermal at 500 ft and land out.. Another pilot circles in the same spot at 400 ft and gets away, thrashing you on points that day.

There are numerous stories up thread about this happening.”

That seems to contradict point #1. Either it is an effective disincentive or it isn’t. I also dispute that people thermal low in valleys and win (590’ above the valleys is where the hard deck applies - unless you want them higher up and more broadly which wasn’t BB’s proposal, though it may be yours). I also dispute the assertion that neophytes are somehow mimicking low thermalling (in valley bottoms) as an explicit copy-cat strategy that regularly moves them up places - at least not at the 350-500 foot range where the hard deck as proposed applies.

I think what some pilots do in my experience is head out over sketchy areas - maybe chasing a cloud - and guys like me refuse to go. I have many examples climbing at 2-knots at the edge of a glide to the last good field while a bunch of other pilots head several more miles into boony-town to snag an 8-knotter. Never were any of us less than 2000’ from the ground. I just don’t see a practical way to go through a task area and make judgments about where the last good field is and how much is a safe glide angle under any of a range of wind and weather conditions for the purpose of setting up a hard deck. We can’t even get organizers to systematically vet waypoint files for that sort of thing, though some occasionally try (Andy looks at his watch and wonders how long it will be before Ron Gleason rings in).

The place where there seems to be some traction is in a few cases where there is a clear hazard in a task area and risky behavior can save either many tens of minutes or a landout. Here some targeted task design or use of .sua files might make everyone a bit safer and happier. Truckee is the one example that a lot of people seem to agree about - there may be others. The trick there is getting a good design that doesn’t create new problems. BTW it’s not clear to me that a 15-mile finish would guarantee that fewer people finish - maybe just on days where finishing requires taking the elevator low. That’s probably a good thing. Take the elevator after you finish if it’s within you margin of safety.

Andy - 9B

As pointed out several times, some will circle at 300' to avoid a retrieve even if scored a landout at 500'. There have been several anecdotes related up thread of people doing a low save and going on to win.

But my main problem is the "heading out over sketchy areas" and has little to do with 500' saves. I've seen it many times and this is the worry expressed by my non-racing pilot friends. A rule discouraging that might encourage a closer look at viable landing sites pre-contest and that would be a good thing. Many out west which look good on paper or from the air will soil your pants if you walk the ground.

30 mile cylinder: I didn't say no one would finish - I said no one would return to Truckee. Unless the finish cylinder height was very high. If it is 30 miles and 8000 ft, you will finish over the Carson or Sierraville valley at 8000', with a lot of work to do late in the dying day if you are trying to avoid a retrieve.