On Monday, February 5, 2018 at 5:11:40 PM UTC-6, John Cochrane wrote:
Bumping below as no response from any hard deck advocates:

JC: Sorry. I get tired of answering the same questions over and over

1) Lets define a typical contest area as a circle with a radius of 75 miles from the contest site. Lets assume this is Elmira. In this area the valley floors likely vary +/- 300ft and often that much within 10 miles of each other. Creating an SUA file to account for this would be nearly impossible.

JC: Even were this true, it is not a logical argument against a hard deck at Seniors, Hobbs, Uvalde, Perry, Cesar creek, Ionia, etc. etc. etc. where a single MSL altitude for most of the task area would suffice.

I think I see your intent, John, but I think you oversimplify "flatland" a bit too much.

Taking Hobbs and Uvalde as examples of your "flatland", one single MSL altitude would not be a good idea. Hobbs is at 3707 MSL. Big Spring is often used, and it is at 2573, or about 1100 feet lower. Portales is at 4078, so a bit over 300 feet higher, and about 1500 feet higher than the low area.

Using Uvalde, at 942 MSL, with Sonora at 2140 and Uno Mas at 380, again, over 1500 elevation difference between the low and high ends of the task area.

Not saying it can't be done, but it will not be a simple "one altitude MSL hard deck" unless it is above normal tow release altitude over the low ground to keep it high enough to eliminate low circling for points over the high ground. We may not have much contour change here in the center of the US, but we are not level. :-)

I do applaud your analysis of the data and attempts to find ways to make cross country racing safer. I wish there was a simple answer, but I don't think a hard deck is acceptable even as a complex answer.

My .02
Steve Leonard
Flat Lander (but not a Flat Earther)