Hard Deck

On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 3:04:43 PM UTC-8, Steve Koerner wrote:
On Monday, January 29, 2018 at 1:49:35 PM UTC-7, Andy Blackburn wrote:
I sort of had a different version on all of this.

Let the scoring program calculate and flag any circling flight below XXX feet AGL. At that altitude the default is you get a 100 point penalty and at 80% of XXX' the default penalty is a landout. The pilot who gets flagged may then go to the CD and make his/her case for why his flying was safe because he was: 1) circling over high ground or 2) in a pattern for a good field landing into the wind or uphill and had arrived at an altitude to properly scout the landing. These things don't happen that often so I don't see a big burden for CDs and if the goal is to not give points benefits to deliberately irresponsible behavior, maybe that would do it. No SUA files, just use good judgement. If you did a low save off the downwind to base turn on approach to a beautiful field - good job! If you made a set of terrible choices and did a best L/D glide to a downwind straight-in to a terrible field and scraped one off the trees next to the high-tension wires, maybe you don't get the passing grade.

Just an idea. I'm sure it's fatally flawed in some way to someone.

Andy Blackburn
9B

You're wanting to penalize folks based on an unreferenced altimeter? I'd engineered a way to avoid that problem -- that is by sampling examination of only those competitors that ended up landing out (and are thereby locally referenced). That makes it so that you are able to have XXX be a tighter measure that isn't wasting altitude and actually correlates exactly with what your eyeball had said about AGL height. By my proposal there is no need to ever have concern about how your altimeter has been impacted by temperature or weather change or location. I think the use of sampling examination would be just as effective in motivating better pilotage in the area of dangerously low saves.

Your proposal requires software. My proposal can be implemented this year by any CD who chooses to do so; the rules and software are in place.

I prefer no altitude be wasted to altimeter uncertainty because that has the ultimate effect of wasting airspace thus impinging on my aviating freewill if I end up having to monitor the instruments and land from a higher altitude than I would otherwise. The measurement uncertainty also will create a problem in the mind of the CD who is assessing the penalty: "Gee sir, I'm sure I wasn't that low, I think the pressure must have been higher out to the east."

Well, my idea is that you get a pass if you can demonstrate to the CD and the contest committee that you were in position to make a landing into a specific field going the right direction. A soft deck if you will. The software just flags possible abuses using a combination of GPS and baro altitude, but it's up to the pilot to demonstrate that it wasn't a brain-dead maneuver. Certainly if you land there the altitude is more certain, but I think generally it's a bit less about the altitude than the situation. Push it down low and you better have a plan. If you have a plan, no problem. If you can't come up with what passes for a plan - even after the fact - you get subjected to the collective judgement of contest committee. The uncertainty of when you get tagged makes it even more important to always have a plan. People like absolute, quantitative rules, but this doesn't seem to be a situation where software is going to be able to tell if you were flying in a safe manner, but your fellow pilots may have a pretty good shot at getting it right.

I don't think I've turned in a thermal below 500' since the 80s. Is this really a habit for people? Doesn't seem like a winning strategy to push that low on a regular basis.

Andy Blackburn
9B