Any news from IGC?

Mark James Boyd wrote:

The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.

Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and
then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by
a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short...

if you declare and fly the OZ (outside quadrant), using the WGS85
distance, it should be OK !

Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything...
See old threads for arguments on this...

I still think keeping quadrants (or even buoys you should fly around)
would have been better, but now that beer cans are in most comps,
loggers, etc., it's better use them for badges also

--
Denis

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

Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
the beercan more firmly in the rules.

What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software
that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond
the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound
tracks!

This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their
observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km
longer for each tp used.

Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors
used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance.

Sound to me like its all getting more complicated rather than less so.

Ian

"Denis" wrote in message
...
Mark James Boyd wrote:

The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.

Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and
then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by
a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short...

if you declare and fly the OZ (outside quadrant), using the WGS85
distance, it should be OK !

Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything...
See old threads for arguments on this...

I still think keeping quadrants (or even buoys you should fly around)
would have been better, but now that beer cans are in most comps,
loggers, etc., it's better use them for badges also

--
Denis

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

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:31:17 UTC, "tango4"
wrote:

: Sound to me like its all getting more complicated rather than less so.

No committee has ever voted to make things less complicated.

Ian


--

tango4 wrote:
Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
the beercan more firmly in the rules.

What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software
that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond
the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound
tracks!

This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their
observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km
longer for each tp used.

Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors
used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance.

Will written declarations really require the task distances, when the
electronic declarations won't?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

tango4 wrote:

Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
the beercan more firmly in the rules.

Beer can turnpoints were already in use the USA long before GPS came
along, when we were using cameras in our contests. It was not a new
invention, as least for us. It was much easier to use (pilots and photo
interpertation) than the 90 degree sector with cameras and GPS.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Too each his own I guess. As a pilot who has managed to accumulate all the
minor badges with the little shiny stones on without actually having a claim
turned down for documentation reasons my approach would be to state the TP
styles in use, both 'distances' to the actual tps and the shorter version if
BC's are used.

Ian


"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...
tango4 wrote:
Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable
to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just
embedded
the beercan more firmly in the rules.

What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software
that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km
beyond
the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound
tracks!

This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their
observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km
longer for each tp used.

Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO
sectors
used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance.

Will written declarations really require the task distances, when the
electronic declarations won't?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

Denis wrote:

PapaIndia wrote:

Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?


http://www.fai.org/gliding/meetings/...nsfrom2004.pdf

and now there are the minutes:

http://www.fai.org/gliding/meetings/...inutes2004.pdf

--
Denis

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