TAT scoring question

Jonathan....as confusing as the rules are I think that they are not nearly
as confusing as you are making them out to be.

First of all you can say whatever you wish on the radio but it makes
absolutely NO difference now i.e. the "good finish" stuff is simply a
courtesy leftover from the old days. I don't see any rule that says once
you "say" you are going to finish that you are required to do so.

The original point was to ask if it is "legal" to finish then take a chance
that you could make another turn on an MAT task. There was another re TAT's
but I think we've covered that. There is no rule that I can see precluding
anyone from "finishing" high then going on to another turnpoint to see if
they could make it and if so claiming the prior "finish" was one of their
turnpoints with them in the end adding at least one more turn prior to the
"real" finish.

In practicality I think both of these situations would arise only rarely but
as weird as the weather can be am sure that eventually it would occur. I
think Mark has brought up some good points and it is always good to put the
rules to the test if not in flight then theoretically.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix

Leaving out the more absurd loopholes (all claimed control points and
the required on-site landing not contained in a single flight) and
contradictions (inability to re-launch on a second attempt, without
invalidating the start from the successful task completion during the
previous flight); I don't think this thread has correctly analysed
the issues of multiple finishes. Whatever conclusions have been
reached about inserting TPs(MAT) and extending TPs (TAT) between two
finishes would seem to me to apply equally and more so to keeping in
the pocket TPs reached between two starts. After all it is explicit
in the U.S. rules that the best scoring start be scored, which is more
than can be said regarding multiple finishes. Also, calling back
starts is only required if the CD chooses, but calling finishes (and
"Finished" past tense on cylinders) or being observed by the gate
(on lines) is always required.

You think this radio chatter is just a quaint anachronism. I think it
is the only test of an actual start/finish, as opposed to a flight
path just happening to pass through the start/finish zones. I don't
think WinScore or the scorer can be expected to determine the pilots'
intentions from the flight path.

I think adding or extending TPs between multiple starts or finishes is
not the intent or (gasp) spirit of the rules. I don't think you can
get away with it at a contest IF anyone notices. I think that such
TPs are considered "out of sequence", even if they could just as well
be looked at as "in sequence" by disregarding unwanted later starts or
earlier finishes.

Bottom line. I think you finished or you didn't, based on your radio
chatter. If you finished you have no further chance to go out and add
/extend TPs. If you didn't than you have no finish in the bag to fall
back on. I believe accepting the landout risk applies ONLY to making
a second attempt without landing and turning in documentation. Going
out after finishing without re-starting has no possible reward.

Jonathan

PS Didn't we have the exact same thread last year? Perhaps the rule
writer should comment on whether there are multiple choice starts and
finishes with TP's in between. I think any TPs before your last start
or after your first finish are intended to be null and void. This is
nearly impossible to enforce in the case of non-called in starts.

"Kilo Charlie" wrote in message news:tURYc.5278$Mf.3157@fed1read02...
Jonathan....as confusing as the rules are I think that they are not nearly
as confusing as you are making them out to be.

First of all you can say whatever you wish on the radio but it makes
absolutely NO difference now i.e. the "good finish" stuff is simply a
courtesy leftover from the old days. I don't see any rule that says once
you "say" you are going to finish that you are required to do so.

The original point was to ask if it is "legal" to finish then take a chance
that you could make another turn on an MAT task. There was another re TAT's
but I think we've covered that. There is no rule that I can see precluding
anyone from "finishing" high then going on to another turnpoint to see if
they could make it and if so claiming the prior "finish" was one of their
turnpoints with them in the end adding at least one more turn prior to the
"real" finish.

In practicality I think both of these situations would arise only rarely but
as weird as the weather can be am sure that eventually it would occur. I
think Mark has brought up some good points and it is always good to put the
rules to the test if not in flight then theoretically.

Casey Lenox
KC
Phoenix