I vote for Intermediate Proposal "P". It appears to offer a challenge to the competitor and appears to have good flow.

Rule change 12-6 I am not real sure of reasoning. Do we really have a safety issue with Primary and Sportsman? I don't think we do and I have students flying both categories in a Super Decathlon. Rule change 12-11, I disagree with the 60% rule. This decision should be left to the Chief Judges as they have the experienced to call someone out of the box if they see an inability to fly the sequence safely. The rest of the proposed rule changes seem logical, but I'm not totally comfortable with the aircraft recover chute. I will have to divert to Parachute experts here. When you think about the time it takes to Egress from a disabled aircraft and compare that to the time it takes to deploy a Airframe Recovery System, if that airframe recovery system functions at some very unusual aircraft attitudes, I guess I can see the logic. I recall a recent video of the pilot overseas, I believe Italy, where the wing folded up on his LSA during acro and he successfully deployed the airframe chute, so if that is the basis for the proposed rule, I guess I'm ok with it. I just have to ask how many acro incidents have there been where an airframe chute saved the pilot? We need more than "ONE" to establish a baseline. The personal parachute is still my option, airframe recover chute or not...

Dave Honaker
Four Winds Aviation
McKinney Texas