"10km / only once" amendment

CV wrote in message ...
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:
What do you think of a rule like:
"In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can
be claimed"

Not really clear what is meant with that wording.

But, if it is only about precluding excessive yo-yoing, wouldn't it
be sufficient to just stipulate a maximum number of turnpoits, say
three or four, regardless of the distance between them, or even if
they coincide.

CV

Hello again CV,
Indeed it's only about yo-yoing. I am against it as all of us I guess,
but do not like to hurt a sportif long flight from a bad description
of a rule to avoid it.
The maximum number of waypoints is already given in definition 1.4.5.b
of the flight: Distance using up to three turnpoints.
However "using up to three turnpoints" doesn't mean that the number of
visits that can be made to these turnpoints is also limited to three.
I gave already the example S-A-B-A-B-A-B-F, where only two turnpoints
are used but six visits to turnpoints are made. Flying back and forth
between A and B is yo-yoing. So this must be avoided.
My idea of a fair rule is "In any sequence no more then three visits
to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance" replacing
the "10 km /only once in any sequence or not at all" rule of the Code.
This latter does hardly service its purpose these days using GPS and
can have a disastrous effect on long sportif flights.
I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
course.

Karel, NL

ir. K.P. Termaat wrote:
The maximum number of waypoints is already given in definition 1.4.5.b
of the flight: Distance using up to three turnpoints.
However "using up to three turnpoints" doesn't mean that the number of
visits that can be made to these turnpoints is also limited to three.

Well, that is exactly what it does mean, the way I read the
rule. Once you have rounded (or visited if you prefer) a
declared point you have used one of your turnpoints.
Do it three times and you have used up your three.

Clearly you read the rule differently.

I gave already the example S-A-B-A-B-A-B-F, where only two turnpoints
are used but six visits to turnpoints are made.

Well, myself and somebody else already commented on that example.

You see "visits" and "turn points" as different things while for
some of us they mean the same thing.

CV

ir. K.P. Termaat wrote:
snip
My idea of a fair rule is "In any sequence no more then three visits
to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance" replacing
snip
I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
course.

Another thing:
Apart from understanding the existing rules in different ways I
totally support your effort. Your text is correct and understandable
to me, except for "then" which should be changed to "than".

Good luck with having the rule passed. It is about time that someone
did away with that 10 km rule which doesn't seem to serve any useful
purpose.

Cheers CV

CV wrote in message ...
ir. K.P. Termaat wrote:
snip
My idea of a fair rule is "In any sequence no more then three visits
to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance" replacing
snip
I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
course.

Another thing:
Apart from understanding the existing rules in different ways I
totally support your effort. Your text is correct and understandable
to me, except for "then" which should be changed to "than".

Good luck with having the rule passed. It is about time that someone
did away with that 10 km rule which doesn't seem to serve any useful
purpose.

Cheers CV

Thanks CV. We are working hard on getting a perfect amendment. Not
easy though. However, thanks to people like you we expect to get rid
of a very nasty trap in the rules. Will change "then" to "than",
thanks.
Ian indicated that 1.4.3.c must amended at the same time. We will do
that too. Looks a little easier.
Thanks for your good wishes.

Karel, NL

Now what you need is an online petition with the details of several hundred
supporting pilots and you can get it to the IGC.

Ian

ir. K.P. Termaat a écrit :

I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
course.

Hi Karel

I support your idea.

However there is no need to search for a perfect wording, because en
amendment takes 2 years to pass at IGC : the first year it is proposed
as a general idea, the second year as a effective modification of the
rule (only then a precise wording is to be proposed, and this will be
done most of the times by the sporting code specialist).

I don't know at all why there is this 10km rule. It is even more stupid
because, for a semantic reason (that "start point" and "finish point"
are not considerered as "turn points") the 2nd turn point may be the
same as start or finish point...

That said, you have to convince IGC delegates that the rule they have
voted and defended for years is so stupid, and this will be obviously
the more difficult, since there is very few turnover among IGC delegates
;-)

Therfore it might help to review the "free distance with 3 TP" in its
generality. Thus I would suggest to modify also the rule under which the
turn points *have to be declared* though it is a *free* distance and
though finish point (and, if release point, start point) *have not*.

With the anomaly that records may use undeclared turn point but not
badges, and the resulting complexity of the wording (free distances for
badges, free distances for records, etc.). And that every other type of
flight (i.e. straight distance, out and return, triangle), now, have
"declared" and "free" subtype that have each their separate records, but
"free distance with up to 3 TP" keep a "free" subtype for records, and a
"not so free" subtype for badges.

Another anomaly is that the "diamond goal" badge (a goal flight of 300
km - see 2.1.3.b) may *not* be a "straight distance to a goal" and that
the its non-goal version (the gold distance 2.1.2.a) may *not* use
undeclared turn points !

The logic would be that each type of flight (straight, O/R, triangle,
3TP) have each a "free" and "declared" subtype, and that "distance
flights" for badges, and that goal flights use "declared" subtype while
"non-goal" flights would use "free" subtype.

Whether Diplomas (e.g. 1000 km) would use "free" or "declared" subtypes,
or a combination of both, is still open to discussion, as is the
creation of a "declared distance with up to 3 TP" record type to balance
the new "free distance with up to 3 TP" acception.

--
Denis

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

Thanks Denis for your support and your explanation of the procedure at IGC.
At the moment we are only after replacing the "10km / only once" limitation
in 1.4.5.b (and 1.4.3.c I guess) by a more sensible statement that does not
hurt long sportif x-country performances where an out and return is part of
the total performance.

In fact we support IGC's view of having a performance rule with an anti
yo-yo limitation in it, however the rule:
1. may not have an akward trap in it as a by-product
2. suppresses yo-yoing effectively,
3. allows Ray Lindskys type of flights in mountainous areas
4. allows Ronalds type of flights in rather flat areas
5. gives a lot of freedom to pilots to plan their 1-3 Tp flights

So we are not after more goals at the moment.

Thanks for the attention.

Karel, NL



"Denis" schreef in bericht
...
ir. K.P. Termaat a écrit :

I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
course.

Hi Karel

I support your idea.

However there is no need to search for a perfect wording, because en
amendment takes 2 years to pass at IGC : the first year it is proposed
as a general idea, the second year as a effective modification of the
rule (only then a precise wording is to be proposed, and this will be
done most of the times by the sporting code specialist).

I don't know at all why there is this 10km rule. It is even more stupid
because, for a semantic reason (that "start point" and "finish point"
are not considerered as "turn points") the 2nd turn point may be the
same as start or finish point...

That said, you have to convince IGC delegates that the rule they have
voted and defended for years is so stupid, and this will be obviously
the more difficult, since there is very few turnover among IGC delegates
;-)

Therfore it might help to review the "free distance with 3 TP" in its
generality. Thus I would suggest to modify also the rule under which the
turn points *have to be declared* though it is a *free* distance and
though finish point (and, if release point, start point) *have not*.

With the anomaly that records may use undeclared turn point but not
badges, and the resulting complexity of the wording (free distances for
badges, free distances for records, etc.). And that every other type of
flight (i.e. straight distance, out and return, triangle), now, have
"declared" and "free" subtype that have each their separate records, but
"free distance with up to 3 TP" keep a "free" subtype for records, and a
"not so free" subtype for badges.

Another anomaly is that the "diamond goal" badge (a goal flight of 300
km - see 2.1.3.b) may *not* be a "straight distance to a goal" and that
the its non-goal version (the gold distance 2.1.2.a) may *not* use
undeclared turn points !

The logic would be that each type of flight (straight, O/R, triangle,
3TP) have each a "free" and "declared" subtype, and that "distance
flights" for badges, and that goal flights use "declared" subtype while
"non-goal" flights would use "free" subtype.

Whether Diplomas (e.g. 1000 km) would use "free" or "declared" subtypes,
or a combination of both, is still open to discussion, as is the
creation of a "declared distance with up to 3 TP" record type to balance
the new "free distance with up to 3 TP" acception.

--
Denis

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