Any news from IGC?

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

It is however important to remember that the 'observation' zones for
Competitions and Badges are slightly different, and if you intend to
claim a badge you need to go a bit further into the zone.

At least until 1st Oct 2004, where beer can will be included in the OZ
even for badges or records


--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

In article ,
Denis wrote:
Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

It is however important to remember that the 'observation' zones for
Competitions and Badges are slightly different, and if you intend to
claim a badge you need to go a bit further into the zone.

At least until 1st Oct 2004, where beer can will be included in the OZ
even for badges or records

I assume that like competitions, distance will be calculated by
the furthest point into the beer can...right?

Do you have a reference for this? How big is the beer can?

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd wrote:

At least until 1st Oct 2004, where beer can will be included in the OZ
even for badges or records


I assume that like competitions, distance will be calculated by
the furthest point into the beer can...right?

I don't know which competitions you are speaking about, nor their
particular rules. I am refeering to SC3 annex A, where the distance is
calculated by the turn point itself, center of the beer can.

Do you have a reference for this? How big is the beer can?

Look at the agenda of 2004 IGC meeting on www.fai.org/gliding site (I
don't know if the proposal has been approved by the plenary, but it is
likely because it was a year 2 proposal) .

The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.

Unfortunately there is now two ways of declaring a turn point : with
usual observation zone (90° quadrant) *or* with target zone (beer can).
And I don't know how this can be done in any electronic delaration ! Not
speaking from the mess in analysis softwares with several possible task
distances from the same turn points !

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

Denis wrote:

I don't know which competitions you are speaking about, nor their
particular rules. I am refeering to SC3 annex A, where the distance is
calculated by the turn point itself, center of the beer can.

Do you have a reference for this? How big is the beer can?

Look at the agenda of 2004 IGC meeting on www.fai.org/gliding site (I
don't know if the proposal has been approved by the plenary, but it is
likely because it was a year 2 proposal) .

The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.

Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and
then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by
a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short...

I suppose for any task it makes sense to tack on a few extra km,
and be extra sure to hit the OZ (maybe two tight turns around the point)
to make absolutely sure...

Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything...
See old threads for arguments on this...
--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

Mark James Boyd wrote:

The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.

Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and
then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by
a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short...

if you declare and fly the OZ (outside quadrant), using the WGS85
distance, it should be OK !

Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything...
See old threads for arguments on this...

I still think keeping quadrants (or even buoys you should fly around)
would have been better, but now that beer cans are in most comps,
loggers, etc., it's better use them for badges also

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
the beercan more firmly in the rules.

What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software
that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond
the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound
tracks!

This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their
observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km
longer for each tp used.

Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors
used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance.

Sound to me like its all getting more complicated rather than less so.

Ian

"Denis" wrote in message
...
Mark James Boyd wrote:

The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.

Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and
then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by
a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short...

if you declare and fly the OZ (outside quadrant), using the WGS85
distance, it should be OK !

Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything...
See old threads for arguments on this...

I still think keeping quadrants (or even buoys you should fly around)
would have been better, but now that beer cans are in most comps,
loggers, etc., it's better use them for badges also

--
Denis

R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:31:17 UTC, "tango4"
wrote:

: Sound to me like its all getting more complicated rather than less so.

No committee has ever voted to make things less complicated.

Ian


--

tango4 wrote:
Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
the beercan more firmly in the rules.

What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software
that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond
the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound
tracks!

This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their
observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km
longer for each tp used.

Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors
used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance.

Will written declarations really require the task distances, when the
electronic declarations won't?

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

tango4 wrote:

Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
the beercan more firmly in the rules.

Beer can turnpoints were already in use the USA long before GPS came
along, when we were using cameras in our contests. It was not a new
invention, as least for us. It was much easier to use (pilots and photo
interpertation) than the 90 degree sector with cameras and GPS.

--
-----
change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA