A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

"10km / only once" amendment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 16th 04, 09:10 PM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "10km / only once" amendment

Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other
respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an
excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the true
intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way.
I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His
flight can be seen at
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...hp?ref3=119825
The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his
third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly flat
country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the "10
km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot be
granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are
talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a still
larger flight rather then a "yoyo".
Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to achieve
a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in wave
or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent that
such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the
rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely out
of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it.
Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart / only
once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a great
performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points" (1.4.5.b.
of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three
turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a turn
point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not at
all I guess.
What do you think of a rule like:
"In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can
be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in 1.4.5.b.
of the Code.

Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next
meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we like
to give it a ''best shot".

Regards,

Karel Termaat, NL



  #2  
Old June 17th 04, 12:53 AM
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:

Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other
respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an
excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the true
intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way.
I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His
flight can be seen at
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...hp?ref3=119825
The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his
third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly flat
country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the "10
km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot be
granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are
talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a still
larger flight rather then a "yoyo".
Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to achieve
a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in wave
or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent that
such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the
rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely out
of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it.
Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart / only
once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a great
performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points" (1.4.5.b.
of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three
turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a turn
point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not at
all I guess.
What do you think of a rule like:
"In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can
be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in 1.4.5.b.
of the Code.

Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next
meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we like
to give it a ''best shot".


While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for
about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and
revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed
so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources
have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/
lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same
as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some
elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my
short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1 hour
ago.

Mike
Ka8 (non-contest MU)
M-ASA



  #3  
Old June 17th 04, 06:47 AM
tango4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Why not say 'for tasks up to 300km in length the turnpoints must be 10km
apart and may not be used more than once'

Ian

"Mike" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:

Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other
respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an
excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the

true
intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way.
I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His
flight can be seen at
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...hp?ref3=119825
The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his
third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly

flat
country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the

"10
km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot

be
granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are
talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a

still
larger flight rather then a "yoyo".
Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to

achieve
a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in

wave
or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent

that
such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the
rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely

out
of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it.
Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart /

only
once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a

great
performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points"

(1.4.5.b.
of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three
turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a

turn
point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not

at
all I guess.
What do you think of a rule like:
"In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints

can
be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in

1.4.5.b.
of the Code.

Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next
meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we

like
to give it a ''best shot".


While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for
about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and
revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed
so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources
have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/
lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same
as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some
elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my
short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1 hour
ago.

Mike
Ka8 (non-contest MU)
M-ASA





  #4  
Old June 17th 04, 08:58 AM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I think it's better to have no figures at all to prevent "yoyo-ing" but a
clear short statement without underlying traps.
May be my suggestion fulfils this.

Karel


"tango4" schreef in bericht
...
Why not say 'for tasks up to 300km in length the turnpoints must be 10km
apart and may not be used more than once'

Ian

"Mike" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:

Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and

other
respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that

an
excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which

the
true
intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way.
I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat.

His
flight can be seen at
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...hp?ref3=119825
The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as

his
third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly

flat
country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the

"10
km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge

cannot
be
granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are
talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a

still
larger flight rather then a "yoyo".
Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to

achieve
a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in

wave
or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent

that
such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However

the
rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is

completely
out
of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it.
Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart /

only
once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a

great
performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points"

(1.4.5.b.
of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three
turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times

a
turn
point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule;

not
at
all I guess.
What do you think of a rule like:
"In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared

turnpoints
can
be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in

1.4.5.b.
of the Code.

Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next
meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we

like
to give it a ''best shot".


While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for
about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and
revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed
so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources
have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/
lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same
as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some
elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my
short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1

hour
ago.

Mike
Ka8 (non-contest MU)
M-ASA







  #5  
Old June 17th 04, 02:08 PM
CV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

  #6  
Old June 17th 04, 04:13 PM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

You are absolutely right Todd and the way of thinking of CV is o.k. too. There is nothing wrong with visiting a first waypoint of a flight a second time after hundreds of kilometers and many hours later, especially in a flat country like NL.

But abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule completely would allow pilots to declare just two turnpoints in the 1.4.5.b flight definition and fly back and forth between them for ever to obtain a large distance suitable to be awarded with the 1000 km FAI badge. This is not right of course.
So there must be a rule to prevent that, but of course without the underlying trap for an excellent performance with three visits to predeclared turnpoints during the whole of the flight. I still have some problems looks like in defining a sharp statement for that. Let's put my current best shot into perspective by writing down the complete "amended" FAI rule as I see it now.

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed.

This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it.

Karel, NL


"Todd Pattist" schreef in bericht ...
"K.P. Termaat" wrote:

I think it's better to have no figures at all to prevent "yoyo-ing" but a
clear short statement without underlying traps.
May be my suggestion fulfils this.


I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule. We
already have a 3 TP max rule. Who cares if they come back
to the same point and use a TP twice? To me, the only
benefit of a "yo-yo" is if you get to use more than 3 TP's.
As far as I can tell, the main effect of this rule is that
it makes pilots flying badges on linear lift systems (ridges
and waves) put one TP at each the end of the line, and one
about 10 km from the end. I suppose that's slightly harder
than flying the whole line of lift end to end, but not much.

The rule is pretty well known for pilots flying near
established ridge or wave systems, but otherwise acts as a
trap, as in this case.
Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

"Todd Pattist" schreef in bericht ...
"K.P. Termaat" wrote:

I think it's better to have no figures at all to prevent "yoyo-ing" but a
clear short statement without underlying traps.
May be my suggestion fulfils this.


I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule. We
already have a 3 TP max rule. Who cares if they come back
to the same point and use a TP twice? To me, the only
benefit of a "yo-yo" is if you get to use more than 3 TP's.
As far as I can tell, the main effect of this rule is that
it makes pilots flying badges on linear lift systems (ridges
and waves) put one TP at each the end of the line, and one
about 10 km from the end. I suppose that's slightly harder
than flying the whole line of lift end to end, but not much.

The rule is pretty well known for pilots flying near
established ridge or wave systems, but otherwise acts as a
trap, as in this case.
Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

  #7  
Old June 17th 04, 06:35 PM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Let's consider two declared turnpoints A and B. Without a rule a pilot can
claim a flight like Start - A - B - A - B - A - B - ...... Finish. He
visited two declared waypoints many times and came finally up with 1000 km.
Should not be possible of course, so a rule is required that limits the
number of visits to declared turnpoints up to the maximum of three for the
1.4.5.b. type of flight. The current FAI rule is not good enough though of
course.

If one can read from my proposal that it is allowed to visit each of the
three declared turnpoints three times, then my definition is not accurate
enough apparently. A bad night again.
Would the word "total" help out like: "In any sequence not more then a total
of up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed".

Karel
"Todd Pattist" schreef in bericht
...
"K.P. Termaat" wrote:

abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule completely would allow pilots to

declare just two turnpoints in the 1.4.5.b flight definition and fly back
and forth between them for ever to obtain a large distance suitable to be
awarded with the 1000 km FAI badge. This is not right of course.

I agree it's not right to yo yo indefinitely, but I don't
see how it would be allowed with the 10km language removed
from the 1.4.5 rule. The rule already limits the pilot to 3
TP's



1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a

finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be
declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared
turnpoints may be claimed.

This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it.


That proposed rule looks like you can go three times to each
of three TP's. You want each visit to a TP to count as one
of the maximum of 3 TP's, so you allow the same TP to be
declared twice (rather than the current 10km apart req't for
'nearby' TP's) - not declared once but visited twice (or
three times).


Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
(Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)



  #8  
Old June 17th 04, 07:04 PM
CV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


K.P. Termaat wrote:

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a
finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be
declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared
turnpoints may be claimed.

This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it.


Well, you could change "not more then up to three visits" to
"no more than three visits" or "a maximum of three visits".

Also, this seems to leave open the possibility of rounding
the turnpoints in a different order than declared, and even
of skipping one declared turn point !? (You could declare
A-B-C and then fly A-B-A, or maybe even A-C-A, B-A-B, B-C-B,
C-A-C or C-B-C) Was that what you intended ? Or is this
covered somewhere else in the rules ?

It seem a little messy to talk about "visits". Why not just
treat TP3 as a different turn point than TP1, even if it
happens to be on the same spot on the map ?

BTW the rule about not having to declare the finish is interesting.
It would seem you can visit your declared TP or TP's (1 to 3) and
then basically treat the last leg as a free distance. Is that how
the rules stand today ?

Regards CV

  #9  
Old June 17th 04, 10:51 PM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Ok, CV will change to "no more then three visits" and add "performance". Thanks. Amended 1.4.5.b then becomes:

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence, no more then three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance.

With this definition it is possible to declare three turnpoints and:
1. Visit no point at all i.e. make a free flight to a landing place
2. Visit one turnpoint and return home or land anywhere else
3. Visit two turnpoints and return home or land anywhere else
4. Visit three turnpoints and return home or land anywhere else.
5. The sequence in which declared turnpoints are visited is up to the pilot.
6. It is not possible to visit more then three turnpoints because of the "no more" rule. So "yoyo-ing" is not possible.

Your examples are correct. Since startpoint and finishpoint are no turnpoints a flight like S-A-S-B-F-C-F is legal in the original FAI rule (see the Code) and in my amended version (6 legs, i.e. and average of 160 km per leg for a 1000 km flight, so nothing wrong with that).
Usually a flight will be planned like S-A-B-C-F or S-A-B-A-F or the ones you indicate.
Turnpoints at the same spot are like identical twins; you can give them different names indeed.
The last part of the performance is basically free indeed.

Regards and thanks for your attention,

Karel, NL


"CV" schreef in bericht ...

K.P. Termaat wrote:

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a
finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be
declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared
turnpoints may be claimed.

This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it.


Well, you could change "not more then up to three visits" to
"no more than three visits" or "a maximum of three visits".

Also, this seems to leave open the possibility of rounding
the turnpoints in a different order than declared, and even
of skipping one declared turn point !? (You could declare
A-B-C and then fly A-B-A, or maybe even A-C-A, B-A-B, B-C-B,
C-A-C or C-B-C) Was that what you intended ? Or is this
covered somewhere else in the rules ?

It seem a little messy to talk about "visits". Why not just
treat TP3 as a different turn point than TP1, even if it
happens to be on the same spot on the map ?

BTW the rule about not having to declare the finish is interesting.
It would seem you can visit your declared TP or TP's (1 to 3) and
then basically treat the last leg as a free distance. Is that how
the rules stand today ?

Regards CV

  #10  
Old June 18th 04, 12:23 AM
Ian Strachan
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , Todd Pattist
writes

I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule.


Quite. The KISS principle applies.

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Instructors: is no combat better? ArtKramr Military Aviation 103 March 13th 04 10:07 PM
L.A. Times -- Request and Amendment Blueskies Home Built 0 August 11th 03 02:35 AM
L.A. Times -- Request and Amendment Blueskies Piloting 0 August 11th 03 02:35 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.