By christiaandurrant on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 14:46

Luc I agree but even a collapse on B Wing at low altitude negates both reserves (that I am required to carry) and places me at extreme risk. Meanwhile we apply a penalty for 1m into the airspace at 4000m yet reward the guys who fly below reserve altitude. What are peoples thoughts on a Min altitude being applied of 50m AGL throughout a race that would permit a collapse and/or reserve at all times?

1 in favour | 1 against
By Damien Pattou on Sat, 25 Oct 2025 - 23:45

In reply to by christiaandurrant

Unfortunately scoring and penalties would be extremely complicated if not impossible if they must take height above ground into account. The data isn't accurate enough and it would be impossible to judge when a pilot is close to a vertical cliff.

By Markos Siotos on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 22:10

Mmm... It make sense as a statement, but its application can be problematic.

On the one hand, someone can say that "being at 20m AGL at trim speed I am safer than 50m Full bar", and perhaps that is right.

Then, on some cliffs you are from 100m to 30 m for a second or two, to 100 m again... Is just the terrain that undulates underneath you...

We handle this by "eye" and it's ok, but if we where to apply a penalty for that "momentary bust" it would make things more complicated without increasing real safety...

On a textbook "geometrically perfect" ridge I see the point but in reality we rarely get these....

2 in favour | 0 against
By Brett Hazlett on Mon, 27 Oct 2025 - 21:32

Could we reduce the probability of a deep collapse above 50 km/h by using less mean camber, while benefiting from less profile drag?