On Friday, January 26, 2018 at 5:01:01 PM UTC-5, John Cochrane wrote:
Thanks, it was time to start a proper threat. Let me put out a concrete proposal so we know what we're talking about.

The purpose of the hard deck is not to prevent bad behavior. The purpose is to remove the points incentive for very low thermaling, which has led to many crashes. It is not intended to alleviate all points incentives for all bad behavior -- such as flying too close to rocks, flying over unlandable terrain, and so forth. It is a small step, not a cure all.

Proposal. The contest organizers prepare a set of sua (special use airspace) files, just like those used to define restricted areas, class B and C, and other forbidden airspace. The SUAs denote a minimum MSL altitude for that area. The MSL altitudes should be round numbers, such as 500 foot increments. They should be roughly 500 - 1500 feet AGL, with higher values over unlandable terrain. The SUAs are designed for altitudes above valley floors, where handouts take place. In normal circumstances there is no hard deck over mountains and ridges. Specified ridge routes, where ridge soaring less than 500 feet over the valley floor, are carved out. The SUA stops short of the ridge in such areas.

These SUAs are forbidden airspace like any other. The penalty is that you are landed out at the point of entry.

Long disclaimers about pilot responsibility. The SUA may be at too low an altitude for safety. Below the SUA you are not forced to land out -- do what you want, thermal up, get home if you can. We're just not going to give contest points for anything you do after you get in the SUA.

Try it first on relatively flat sites. The SUAs may need to be more complex for mountain and ridge sites, so obviously we move there after the concept is proved at flatland sites.

Again, we're not here to forbid anything or tell pilots what to do. We just are no longer going to give points for very low altitude saves. We may not even dent the accident rate. We just want to remove it as a competitive necessity and temptation.

John Cochrane

I invite you to apply hard deck logic to this flight. i'm genuinely curious to hear how a hard deck would handle this sort of situation:
https://www.onlinecontest.org/olc-2....tId=1097283864

Look at the KML file. i'm talking specifically about the final leg. i was ridge soaring the lower step of stone mountain on the last leg of the race. had i slowed down and taken time to get to the higher step, (no reason to, the lower step was working fine)i would not have won the day, and by extension, the nationals. i was perhaps 600 feet above the valley floor. sometimes less. constantly watching the fields go by, revising landing options every 30 seconds.

this was perfectly safe, and if i hadn't done it i wouldn't have won the contest. it's a situation that the hard deck wouldn't allow for. for 13 miles i was 600 feet agl. my tone is not adversarial, i just want to see how you would handle this situation. i think the hard deck idea is too black and white for all the possible scenarios.