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
  #11  
Old June 18th 04, 12:37 AM
CV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Todd Pattist wrote:
"K.P. Termaat" wrote:

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.


I understand what you're saying, but I think he's made a
flight with 6 TurnPoints. We should allow only 3 TP's to be
declared, and if you want to visit one twice, then you
declare it twice.


I agree. He rounded six turn points: TP1, TP2, TP3, ..., TP6.
Some of them just happened to be on the same spot on the map.
If he only declared two, then only the first two should count.

CV

  #12  
Old June 18th 04, 09:06 AM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi Ian,

I would vote in favor also for abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule, but I think it has no chance at the next IGC meeting.
I agree with KISS; the current rules are much to complicated and moreover rules for badges and records are different and mixed up. What a mess. Very easy to fall in a trap as we did.

B.t.w. do you understand why the 1.4.5.b. rule at its end says "This course must be declared" while the rule says "in any sequence or not at all". I just don't understand (another trap?).

P.s. Our amendment will probably go for :

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.

Would like your opinion on that Ian (apart from abolishing the rule)

Regards,

Karel, NL



"Ian Strachan" schreef in bericht ...
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

  #13  
Old June 18th 04, 09:16 AM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Yes, that's it. So we must have a rule that no more then three visits to
(declared) turnpoints are allowed. That's the true intention of the flight
definition 1.4.5.b. A flight using up to three turnpoints. It doesn't matter
at all that one turnpoint is visited twice (the trap)

Karel, NL


"CV" schreef in bericht
...

Todd Pattist wrote:
"K.P. Termaat" wrote:

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.

I understand what you're saying, but I think he's made a
flight with 6 TurnPoints. We should allow only 3 TP's to be
declared, and if you want to visit one twice, then you
declare it twice.


I agree. He rounded six turn points: TP1, TP2, TP3, ..., TP6.
Some of them just happened to be on the same spot on the map.
If he only declared two, then only the first two should count.

CV



  #14  
Old June 19th 04, 07:28 AM
ir. K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #15  
Old June 20th 04, 10:43 PM
CV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

  #16  
Old June 21st 04, 02:28 PM
CV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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

  #17  
Old June 21st 04, 09:13 PM
ir. K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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
  #18  
Old June 21st 04, 09:39 PM
tango4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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


  #19  
Old June 22nd 04, 01:23 AM
Tom Serkowski
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"K.P. Termaat" wrote in message ...
Hi Ian,

I would vote in favor also for abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule,
but I think it has no chance at the next IGC meeting.
I agree with KISS; the current rules are much to complicated and
moreover rules for badges and records are different and mixed up. What a
mess. Very easy to fall in a trap as we did.


The only major difference between badge and record flight is that for
badges, a triangle doesn't need to meet the min/max leg length, and
that one may use the turnpoint options that I expand on below. For
records, one must declare the exact task to be flown, unless going for
free distance, and that makes sense as that is part of the planning
process for the flight.

I'd like to see this change just a little so one could declare any
time before start instead of before takeoff. But that's for another
thread.

B.t.w. do you understand why the 1.4.5.b. rule at its end says "This
course must be declared" while the rule says "in any sequence or not at
all". I just don't understand (another trap?).


I quote the key sentence in 1.4.5.b:

"The TURNPOINTS must be at least 10 km apart and may be claimed once,
in any sequence, or not at all."

Instead of "visit" the FAI says "claim". Your amendment is exactly
the same as the current rulle exept for the "10 km" part.

For a badge flight this 3 TP task lets the pilot declare 3 different
O&R flights or up to 3 triangles that may meet the badge requirement.
Then, once airborne the pilot can choose one of these tasks or may
just do a straight out. This is a valuable tool for the badge seeker
flying in an area where the weather makes it difficult to choose the
'right' task early in the day. It still requires the badge seeker to
declare the turnpoints to be used, requiring a bit more planning skill
thatn a totally free 3TP flight.

I agree the 10 km rule really should be eliminated as others have
mentioned how it doesn't have any aobvious justification. HOWEVER,
anyone who has even glanced at the rules, should be able to see this
limitation. The task is described in 3 sentences and the 10 km rule
is one of these.

P.s. Our amendment will probably go for :

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.


Tom Serkowski
  #20  
Old June 22nd 04, 09:26 AM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hello Tom,

My reply in your text below.

Karel, NL

"Tom Serkowski" schreef in bericht om...
"K.P. Termaat" wrote in message ...
Hi Ian,

I would vote in favor also for abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule,
but I think it has no chance at the next IGC meeting.
I agree with KISS; the current rules are much to complicated and
moreover rules for badges and records are different and mixed up. What a
mess. Very easy to fall in a trap as we did.


The only major difference between badge and record flight is that for
badges, a triangle doesn't need to meet the min/max leg length,

This was so until last year I guess. AL4 applies now (see 1.4.6.b. referring to 1.4.3.d.) (Sorry, but I have started the study to be a lawyer in order to be able to read the Code (;-))

and
that one may use the turnpoint options that I expand on below. For
records, one must declare the exact task to be flown, unless going for
free distance, and that makes sense as that is part of the planning
process for the flight.

Correct, only the proud owner of a 1000 km distance badge has the option of using a free finishpoint. The pilots that goes for a ditance record must declare also the finishpoint.

I'd like to see this change just a little so one could declare any
time before start instead of before takeoff. But that's for another
thread.

B.t.w. do you understand why the 1.4.5.b. rule at its end says "This
course must be declared" while the rule says "in any sequence or not at
all". I just don't understand (another trap?).


I quote the key sentence in 1.4.5.b:

"The TURNPOINTS must be at least 10 km apart and may be claimed once,
in any sequence, or not at all."

Instead of "visit" the FAI says "claim". Your amendment is exactly
the same as the current rulle exept for the "10 km" part.

For a badge flight this 3 TP task lets the pilot declare 3 different
O&R flights or up to 3 triangles that may meet the badge requirement.
Then, once airborne the pilot can choose one of these tasks or may
just do a straight out. This is a valuable tool for the badge seeker
flying in an area where the weather makes it difficult to choose the
'right' task early in the day. It still requires the badge seeker to
declare the turnpoints to be used, requiring a bit more planning skill
thatn a totally free 3TP flight.


My amendment will not change that; gives in fact more options such as an out and return as part of a larger task. So nothing wrong with that.

I agree the 10 km rule really should be eliminated as others have
mentioned how it doesn't have any aobvious justification. HOWEVER,
anyone who has even glanced at the rules, should be able to see this
limitation. The task is described in 3 sentences and the 10 km rule
is one of these.

This is correct, however I am not very sensitive to rules from the past which have no meaning any more in our days of GPS where a spot on the ground (not even a tree) can be declared as a turnpoint. The "10 km / only once" rule doesn't serve any purpose these days except of being a trap for long sportif distance flights. That there should be a rule though in the Code to avoid "yo-yoing" (the reason for the current rule in the Code focussed on mountain ridges, clear markings on the ground and photo cameras).


P.s. Our amendment will probably go for :

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.


Due to interesting discussions like this one our current amendment looks like:

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a START POINT via up to three declared TURN POINTS to a free FINISH POINT. For the performance no more than three visits to TURNPOINTS may be claimed in any sequence or not at all.

I think this proposal has many options to pilots for making sportif long x-country flight and be rewarded with a FAI badge and it excludes the possibility of "yo-yoing" without doubt.

Karel


Tom Serkowski

 




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 12:48 AM.


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