Why does the Sporting code require "Goal" to be a finish point???

If you want to make a flight to a "goal" the sporting code says that the
"goal" is a "finish point" and the definition of "finish point is
defined as the end of the flight (for simplicity). Either a landing, a
declared "finish point", or engine start location.

My question is why does the goal need to be a finish point???? Why
can't the "goal" be any pre-declared waypoint? If there is a record
attempt that is made from a start point to a "goal" then why should it
matter if there were waypoints used before or after the "goal" is
reached? I'm NOT suggesting that the pilot get credit for the extra
distance. He/she would only get credit for the straight line distance
from the start point to the goal point.

Consider this example. The current state record for "distance to a
goal" is say 100km. You declare an out and return to a waypoint which
is 155km from the start point because if you make it back you'd get your
300k badge flight. Even though you made it to a pre-declared point (a
"goal" if you will) you won't get credit for the state record for
"distance to a goal" because you didn't finish at the declared waypoint.
even though the distance to the waypoint beats the 100km record by 55k.

Why not state that the "goal" must be a pre-declared waypoint OR finish
point and that the distance that is credited for the "distance to a
goal" be defined as the straight line distance from the start point to
the declared waypoint.

Mark

There is no reason why you can't fly an out and return and claim the
outbound leg as the goal part of the flight. The TP then becomes the finish.
The problem is that only one declaration can be in effect at a time when it
comes to the course you intend to fly so you either have to declare a goal
flight or an O/R.

Ian.



"Mark Zivley" wrote in message
m...
If you want to make a flight to a "goal" the sporting code says that the
"goal" is a "finish point" and the definition of "finish point is defined
as the end of the flight (for simplicity). Either a landing, a declared
"finish point", or engine start location.

My question is why does the goal need to be a finish point???? Why can't
the "goal" be any pre-declared waypoint? If there is a record attempt
that is made from a start point to a "goal" then why should it matter if
there were waypoints used before or after the "goal" is reached? I'm NOT
suggesting that the pilot get credit for the extra distance. He/she would
only get credit for the straight line distance from the start point to the
goal point.

Consider this example. The current state record for "distance to a goal"
is say 100km. You declare an out and return to a waypoint which is 155km
from the start point because if you make it back you'd get your 300k badge
flight. Even though you made it to a pre-declared point (a "goal" if you
will) you won't get credit for the state record for "distance to a goal"
because you didn't finish at the declared waypoint. even though the
distance to the waypoint beats the 100km record by 55k.

Why not state that the "goal" must be a pre-declared waypoint OR finish
point and that the distance that is credited for the "distance to a goal"
be defined as the straight line distance from the start point to the
declared waypoint.

Mark

Mark Zivley wrote:

My question is why does the goal need to be a finish point????

Because it is written like this.

I know this is a poor reason but I cannot find a better one...

On the other hand, it is allowed to claim a triangle and to score also
an out and return record (see annex C). Thus the logic would be to allow
also to score a goal flight along with an out and return (and/or a
triangle, keeping in mind that only 2 records are allowed in the same
flight)

But as it has already be said here many times, there are many odd things
in the Sporting code and this is just another one. Ask your delegate to
IGC to improve it ! Or submit the question to the IGC discussion list :
igc-discuss at fai.org


--
Denis

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

X-no-archive: yes
In article , Denis moncourrielest
writes
Mark Zivley wrote:

My question is why does the goal need to be a finish point????

Because it is written like this.

I know this is a poor reason but I cannot find a better one...

On the other hand, it is allowed to claim a triangle and to score also
an out and return record (see annex C). Thus the logic would be to allow
also to score a goal flight along with an out and return (and/or a
triangle, keeping in mind that only 2 records are allowed in the same
flight)

But as it has already be said here many times, there are many odd things
in the Sporting code and this is just another one. Ask your delegate to
IGC to improve it ! Or submit the question to the IGC discussion list :
igc-discuss at fai.org

I must disagree here. Asking your IGC delegate to improve the rules is
the only answer. A question to the discussion list is just that, it will
not in itself produce a change. However, a request from your delegate to
the discussion list for support for such a change may get you what you
want. It needs to be a formal request to the next Plenary meeting for a
change, to achieve anything.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

Mark Zivley wrote:

If you want to make a flight to a "goal" the sporting code says that the
"goal" is a "finish point" and the definition of "finish point is
defined as the end of the flight (for simplicity). Either a landing, a
declared "finish point", or engine start location.

My question is why does the goal need to be a finish point???? Why
can't the "goal" be any pre-declared waypoint? If there is a record
attempt that is made from a start point to a "goal" then why should it
matter if there were waypoints used before or after the "goal" is
reached? I'm NOT suggesting that the pilot get credit for the extra
distance. He/she would only get credit for the straight line distance
from the start point to the goal point.

Consider this example. The current state record for "distance to a
goal" is say 100km. You declare an out and return to a waypoint which
is 155km from the start point because if you make it back you'd get your
300k badge flight.

USA state records and FAI badges are independent: state records are
handled by the SSA record keeper for the state, and the badge
application is handled by the SSA "badge lady" who represents the FAI
interests. So, you should be able to have two declarations, one for the
SSA and one for the FAI. I don't know if anyone has tried this, but the
FAI badge rules and SSA State record rules don't prohibit declarations
that aren't for their purposes.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

USA state records and FAI badges are independent: state records are
handled by the SSA record keeper for the state, and the badge
application is handled by the SSA "badge lady" who represents the FAI
interests. So, you should be able to have two declarations, one for the
SSA and one for the FAI. I don't know if anyone has tried this, but the
FAI badge rules and SSA State record rules don't prohibit declarations
that aren't for their purposes.


Eric,

The problem is that you actually have to "finish" as in "land", or have
the goal point as your only waypoint (i.e. finish point), etc. For 300k
free distance this is no big deal as you can "finish" for the record and
then after the fact declare your "finish point" for the 300k, but for
diamond goal then it'd wouldn't because you would have to declare the
specific 300k route.

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

But as it has already be said here many times, there are many odd things
in the Sporting code and this is just another one. Ask your delegate to
IGC to improve it ! Or submit the question to the IGC discussion list :
igc-discuss at fai.org


I must disagree here. Asking your IGC delegate to improve the rules is
the only answer. A question to the discussion list is just that, it will
not in itself produce a change. However, a request from your delegate to
the discussion list for support for such a change may get you what you
want. It needs to be a formal request to the next Plenary meeting for a
change, to achieve anything.

You're right, but my suggestion to open a discussion before attempting a
formal change proposal was in the hope that someone on this discussion
list be able to provide a reason I did not think about to justify
keeping the existing wording...

--
Denis

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

Mark Zivley wrote:


USA state records and FAI badges are independent: state records are
handled by the SSA record keeper for the state, and the badge
application is handled by the SSA "badge lady" who represents the FAI
interests. So, you should be able to have two declarations, one for
the SSA and one for the FAI. I don't know if anyone has tried this,
but the FAI badge rules and SSA State record rules don't prohibit
declarations that aren't for their purposes.


Eric,

The problem is that you actually have to "finish" as in "land", or have
the goal point as your only waypoint (i.e. finish point), etc. For 300k
free distance this is no big deal as you can "finish" for the record and
then after the fact declare your "finish point" for the 300k, but for
diamond goal then it'd wouldn't because you would have to declare the
specific 300k route.

Your example was claiming a state record and a badge leg on the same
flight. My point, which I believe to be true, is you can have TWO
declarations: one for the state record, one for the badge. I see no
prohibition in either set of rules about declarations used for a purpose
covered by a different set the rules. So, declare the 155 km goal on one
form for the state record; declare the 300k O&R for the badge on a
different form.

Whether you use the finish point for your landing is immaterial, because
neither task requires it.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

But what do you store in your logger as your task? For 300k diamond
goal you would need to have both the O&R and the finish point included.
You can't have both points in the task for the state record "goal".

Eric Greenwell wrote:
Mark Zivley wrote:


USA state records and FAI badges are independent: state records are
handled by the SSA record keeper for the state, and the badge
application is handled by the SSA "badge lady" who represents the FAI
interests. So, you should be able to have two declarations, one for
the SSA and one for the FAI. I don't know if anyone has tried this,
but the FAI badge rules and SSA State record rules don't prohibit
declarations that aren't for their purposes.


Eric,

The problem is that you actually have to "finish" as in "land", or
have the goal point as your only waypoint (i.e. finish point), etc.
For 300k
free distance this is no big deal as you can "finish" for the record
and then after the fact declare your "finish point" for the 300k, but
for diamond goal then it'd wouldn't because you would have to declare
the specific 300k route.


Your example was claiming a state record and a badge leg on the same
flight. My point, which I believe to be true, is you can have TWO
declarations: one for the state record, one for the badge. I see no
prohibition in either set of rules about declarations used for a purpose
covered by a different set the rules. So, declare the 155 km goal on one
form for the state record; declare the 300k O&R for the badge on a
different form.

Whether you use the finish point for your landing is immaterial, because
neither task requires it.

Mark Zivley wrote:
But what do you store in your logger as your task? For 300k diamond
goal you would need to have both the O&R and the finish point included.
You can't have both points in the task for the state record "goal".

It's not required that the declaration be in the logger, though that can
be the most convenient at times. For a dual declaration, the easiest
would be two paper ones, or perhaps one in the logger, one on paper. If
you had two loggers, you could do it that way.


--
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA