On Sunday, January 28, 2018 at 4:39:48 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
Steve, I don't think that addresses John's issue, and certainly not mine. Once a guy has landed out, he's taken a big points hit. This would reward even lower circling, hoping that you would get away and not be subject to scrutiny and a penalty. If you make the save at 200', you've saved the day and your contest position and are not subject to your proposed penalty. The more prudent pilot that stopped at 800' and landed, did neither and is punished for it.

Here's how the calculus will work in the cockpit: If I circle below 300 ft, I will have a 10% chance of getting away and gaining 400 points; at the same time, I will have a 90% chance of losing 200 points. I'm pretty sure that 200 points is plenty enough to make that an easy choice -- that would make for a net expectation of -140 points. Clearly, it could be an even easier choice if the penalty were made larger. I don't think it needs to be larger.

And, normally a landout costs less than 400 points compared to a finisher -- that number, of course, is variable but representative. My 10% number is variable too, but I think it would also be representative of what anyone might reasonably be expecting from a try at 300 ft. Right?

OK, I'm feeling it a little more, with respect to safety aspects of circling that low. I'm still not feeling it with respect to any reduction of reward/risk in situations where 300 ft is already 3000 ft too low. In Per Carlin's proposal, it still seems as complicated as SUAs, especially if you are going to raise and lower the limit based on area - this is just like an SUA, though locally ground referenced rather than pressure referenced.

But those arguments have clarified in my mind that there are two or perhaps several distinct issues. One is to remove the reward for circling below pattern altitude near a landing site - this seems to apply mostly to the east where heights are low and landing sites more plentiful. It addresses both the safety and competitive advantage aspects of that behavior. Another is overflying unlandable areas too low. This may not involve circling at all, and might be quite high considered in isolation. This is more likely the situation in the west, where altitudes are high but landing areas are far between.

I consider both circling at 300 ft, and flying deep into unlandable territory to low to escape - even if perhaps high on the altimeter - to be unacceptable risks. If the expected lift does not materialize, the only difference in outcome is the end point of the latter is delayed a few minutes. But in considering the latter I seem to be in the minority. I gather from this that most competition pilots consider overflying unlandable territory too low to escape to be an acceptable risk of competition.