![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Jonathan Gere wrote:
Please notice that this rule does NOT contain the phrase "and announced his start and finish on the radio". Is this a good argument?. It is difficult to prove a negative, isn't it? Perhaps I should not have attempted to make things easier for you and instead simply said, "There is no rule that invalidates a start or a finish due to lack of a radio call", and put the burden of proof on you to support your opposing statement. I would guess there are quite a few important rules that affect getting a speed score which are NOT referenced in 11.2.2.4.4 or the narrow hierarchy of rules defining the terms 11.2.2.4.4 references. If not, and 11.2.2.4.4 is the all important master root of all rules that count, congratulations, but why is it buried 5 levels deep in section 11? All the rules count, but they cannot all be front and center in paragraph one. And while some rules may be more important than others for running a safe and fair contest, the importance of a rule is not intended to be proportional to its subparagraph level in the rule book. I am not in favor of radio procedure penalties or radio procedure violations invalidating "normal" starts or finishes. I am only clutching at straws to see how the rules might prohibit pre-pending or appending TPs between multiple provisional starts and finishes. So, did you deliberately prevaricate when you stated that, according to the rules, a start or finish is invalidated by the lack of a radio announcement? I find the ability to be on multiple provisional starts / finishes / tasks simultaneously an absurd consequence of the rules. And I do not. It is little comfort to me to have your assurance that it is strategically useless. It is of great comfort to me. I believe there may an infinite number of useless strategies for flying any of the tasks. One of the main purposes of the rules is to ensure fair competition, but I see no benefit in making our rulebook infinitely longer by specifically prohibiting every strategy in which a pilot cannot gain an unfair advantage, or indeed any advantage at all. I'm shocked. This is weird. I don't believe that all variations of this loophole are strategically useless. The 4 times around example is just a good example of the absurdity of the loophole. Operational exploitations can be much more profitable. In practice, one could just prepend optionally claimable S-one or more TPs- Home TP-S combinations without going low to finish. Cheap insurance against gross or possibly even minor undertime. The insurance excursions would occur before the final start intended to bracket the *expected* day. The insurance excursions would absorb any inefficiency in getting ready for the "perfect" optimized start. If not claimed, the excursions imperfect efficiency wouldn't matter. On the other hand, 1hr at even 80% efficiency is a lot better than nothing, when everyone else finished an hour undertime due to an *unexpected* thunderstorm. 30 minutes at 90% efficiency might be worth claiming to avoid a routine 5-10 minute undertime (at 0% efficiency). I will admit that it is not entirely impossible that you could gain by this strategy, but the phrase "extremely unlikely" does not seem powerful enough to describe it. To recap, your insurance lap would only be useful with a no turn MAT (rare nowadays), called on a day with no expected weather problems (when other, less flexible tasks are *far* more likely to be called; no turn MATs are usually called specifically because there are expected weather problems), all of your competitors start (what turns out to be) too late, and along comes a weather problem too severe for the flexibility of the MAT to deal with. I'd call it a one in a million chance. And I don't agree that this insurance is cheap; you simply haven't calculated the cost. You might have to try this insurance lap trick many times before the proper conditions arise to make it useful, and: 1. You might land out while your competitors are safely back near the contest site playing start gate roulette. Believe me, I know what it feels like to land out before one's expected start. 2. The conditions could change while you are on your insurance lap, causing everyone else to start en masse before you get back for your expected start. Even on a no turn MAT, there is often only one obvious direction to go. Your competitors will have thermal markers, and you will have none. 3. Even when the proper combination of conditions comes along, you cannot be sure all of your competitors will start late. If one starts early, he will have the advantage over you of being able to place a higher proportion of his flight in the area of best lift. Your insurance lap will necessarily be close to home, and, in my experience, that is rarely where the best soaring conditions are located. The premium you pay for your insurance lap is much higher than the potential claim payout. Thanks. You admit the loophole. I leave it to better pilots to work out the operationally sound strategies. And if there are no operationally sound strategies, is it still a loophole? Gary Ittner P7 "Have glider, will race" |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
VOR/DME Approach Question | Chip Jones | Instrument Flight Rules | 47 | August 29th 04 05:03 AM |
Legal question - Pilot liability and possible involvement with a crime | John | Piloting | 5 | November 20th 03 09:40 PM |
Special Flight Setup Question (COF) | Dudley Henriques | Simulators | 4 | October 11th 03 12:14 AM |
History of Contest Scoring | Bill Feldbaumer | Soaring | 8 | October 8th 03 02:14 PM |
new TASKs and SCORING - or roll the dice | CH | Soaring | 0 | August 10th 03 07:32 AM |