Any news from IGC?

Running up and down just few kilometers from the airport is not the
same performance what requires by the current 3 turnpoints (plus start
and finish point) rule. Double out and return still allowed.
Theoretically you don't have to go further than 125km from your home on
a 500km task.
I can imagine a paper declaration with simple GPS log for badges. This
would involve more pilots with the same security what photo and
barograph provide right now.

/Janos

Mark James Boyd wrote:

In article ,
Don Johnstone wrote:
I stand corrected. My original query still stands.
Where cameras and smoky barographs were used I can
see the sense of a 'declaration'. With GPS do we really
need it, surely the criteria should be the distance
flown and this can now be positively verified with
a data logger. Why complicate something so simple?
A 300k or 500k downwind dash ie free distance is ok
so why not a triangle

A couple of points, and if anyone thinks any
of these are wrong, please correct me:

1. If a qualifying task is completed which is a subset
of the declared task, this is fine:

EXAMPLE:

A B

D C E

If A-B-E-C-D-A is declared, A-B-C-D-A is flown, and
A-B-C-A qualifies as a 300km triangle, then (assuming the
OZ and altitude rules are met), this is considered a
"declared and completed 300km triangle." Congratulations!

2. There is no limit on the number of turnpoints one
may declare for a flight.

3. Turnpoints may be repeated in a delaration.

So, for example,

A-B-C-D-E-A-B-C-E-D-A-B-D-C-E-A-B-D-E-C-A-B-E-C-D-A-B-E-D-C-
A-C-B-D-E-A-C-B-E-D-A-C-D-B-E-A-C-D-E-B-A-C-E-B-D-A-C-E-D-B-
A-D-B-C-E-A-D-B-E-C-A-D-C-B-E-A-D-C-E-B-A-D-E-B-C-A-D-E-C-B-
A-E-B-C-D-A-E-B-D-C-A-E-C-B-D-A-E-C-D-B-A-E-D-C-B-A-E-D-B-C

is a perfectly valid task declaration. It's also quite useful,
because if one declares this before the flight, one can
fly the turnpoints in any order and after the flight,
that subset achieved is considered a completed, declared
task. And any subset of those points which qualifies
for a badge is also completed and qualifying.

So if one has a clever computer program to print out
all the turnpoint permutations, and enough printer paper,
and a friendly OO, one can simply fly any turnpoints in
whatever order and come back and land and then figure out
what the flight qualifies for. All quite proper.

Reducio ad absurdum...

The IGC should have approved the idea of post-flight declared
turnpoints for badge tasks. It saves paper...

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:404cf98a$1@darkstar...

A couple of points, and if anyone thinks any
of these are wrong, please correct me:

1. If a qualifying task is completed which is a subset
of the declared task, this is fine:

EXAMPLE:

A B


D C E

If A-B-E-C-D-A is declared, A-B-C-D-A is flown, and
A-B-C-A qualifies as a 300km triangle, then (assuming the
OZ and altitude rules are met), this is considered a
"declared and completed 300km triangle." Congratulations!

Huh? Last time I checked, a triangle had three points. So a DECLARED
triangle has three DECLARED points, not as many as you want. You
declare what you are going to fly, then either fly it or don't.
Pretty simple, even for a power pilot...

2. There is no limit on the number of turnpoints one
may declare for a flight.

See above. A declared triangle has a start, two turnpoints, and a
finish. You can't just declare your entire turnpoint list.

3. Turnpoints may be repeated in a delaration.

Tough to do in a triangle, possible in a distance claim. But you
still are required to declare the points in the sequence you intend to
fly them.

So, for example,

A-B-C-D-E-A-B-C-E-D-A-B-D-C-E-A-B-D-E-C-A-B-E-C-D-A-B-E-D-C-
A-C-B-D-E-A-C-B-E-D-A-C-D-B-E-A-C-D-E-B-A-C-E-B-D-A-C-E-D-B-
A-D-B-C-E-A-D-B-E-C-A-D-C-B-E-A-D-C-E-B-A-D-E-B-C-A-D-E-C-B-
A-E-B-C-D-A-E-B-D-C-A-E-C-B-D-A-E-C-D-B-A-E-D-C-B-A-E-D-B-C

is a perfectly valid task declaration. It's also quite useful,
because if one declares this before the flight, one can
fly the turnpoints in any order and after the flight,
that subset achieved is considered a completed, declared
task. And any subset of those points which qualifies
for a badge is also completed and qualifying.

So if one has a clever computer program to print out
all the turnpoint permutations, and enough printer paper,
and a friendly OO, one can simply fly any turnpoints in
whatever order and come back and land and then figure out
what the flight qualifies for. All quite proper.

Reducio ad absurdum...

More like total bull****. Is that how you teach power students to
plan their crosscountry flights? "Just fly around and land at any
airport you happen to see out the window, that will count for your
preflight XC planning..."

The IGC should have approved the idea of post-flight declared
turnpoints for badge tasks. It saves paper...

Why? THE WHOLE POINT IS TO DECLARE THE FLIGHT BEFORE YOU FLY IT, THEN
FLY IT! Otherwise, you are just wandering around. Nothing wrong with
that, but it isn't a declared badge flight.

Mark, read more Pez, wax up the PW-5, declare a task, then go fly it -
you'll feel a lot better afterwards.

Oh, and when you land out, get a ground retrieve, not an aerotow -
your friends will appreciate the steak dinner.

Kirk
66

Ian

Well, the short summary I received from FAI today says that it is not
for the GFAC to take the final decision on this in the future.

Now we can discuss wording - which you certainly is better at - but as
far as I and Göran Ax can interpretate the document "we won".

Cheers
Robert

Ian Strachan wrote:

In article , Robert Danewid
writes

snip

Our delegates report that our proposal was not defeated.


Well, it was not accepted by the Plenary!

The principle that was accepted came from the IGC Bureau. Definitive
wording is being prepared by the Bureau because the Plenary allowed them
to tidy up the loose ends of wording. The revised wording will go in
Annex B to the code in due course. When the wording is agreed I have no
doubt that it will be announced so that people will know what is to happen.

Kirk Stant wrote:

A couple of points, and if anyone thinks any
of these are wrong, please correct me:

1. If a qualifying task is completed which is a subset
of the declared task, this is fine:

EXAMPLE:

A B


D C E

If A-B-E-C-D-A is declared, A-B-C-D-A is flown, and
A-B-C-A qualifies as a 300km triangle, then (assuming the
OZ and altitude rules are met), this is considered a
"declared and completed 300km triangle." Congratulations!

This is wrong, and I goofed. 4.2.2 "No turn points after
a missed turn point can
be claimed." Interestingly, though, the start and finish as far as I know
are NOT turnpoints. So A-B-A can still be claimed as
an out and return, but since E was missed, no turnpoints after
E can be claimed. Again, comments are welcome. This is complex and
comments are helping me work through it.


Huh? Last time I checked, a triangle had three points. So a DECLARED
triangle has three DECLARED points, not as many as you want. You
declare what you are going to fly, then either fly it or don't.
Pretty simple, even for a power pilot...

Well, in the annex C examples, SC3 does describe declared courses
which are not triangles, but which include points which qualify
as a triangle, and that this is fine (the lesser included performance
can be claimed).

The idea here being that if someone declares a 3TP course, and
completes it, if there is a lesser included O&R, triangle, or
straight distance which qualifies or makes a record, then
this is fine.

Are more than 3TPs allowed in a declaration? I can't find
any restriction on this...


2. There is no limit on the number of turnpoints one
may declare for a flight.

See above. A declared triangle has a start, two turnpoints, and a
finish. You can't just declare your entire turnpoint list.

Hmmm...I think you can, but the caveat is that if any turnpoints
are missed along the way, the performance stops (4.2.2 above).
This is clearly a show-stopper...

I honestly don't see anything in the regs which specifically
limits one from declaring more than three turnpoints for a
task. Again, I welcome comments and corrections...

3. Turnpoints may be repeated in a delaration.
A-B-C-D-E-A-B-C-E-D-A-B-D-C-E-A-B-D-E-C-A-B-E-C-D-A-B-E-D-C-
A-C-B-D-E-A-C-B-E-D-A-C-D-B-E-A-C-D-E-B-A-C-E-B-D-A-C-E-D-B-
A-D-B-C-E-A-D-B-E-C-A-D-C-B-E-A-D-C-E-B-A-D-E-B-C-A-D-E-C-B-
A-E-B-C-D-A-E-B-D-C-A-E-C-B-D-A-E-C-D-B-A-E-D-C-B-A-E-D-B-C

is a perfectly valid task declaration. It's also quite useful,

More like total bull****.
Eeeep. Yes I was just plain wrong. Thanks to the posters that
helped me find 4.2.2 which makes this clear...

Is that how you teach power students to
plan their crosscountry flights? "Just fly around and land at any
airport you happen to see out the window, that will count for your
preflight XC planning..."

Of course not G. LOL. I'm just trying to see where the verbiage is
for each of these tasks. Keep in mind, the free 3-TP tasks seem to
allow just that, and yes, one can plan for those too, so although
it doesn't apply to the non-free tasks, such an idea isn't so farfetched
when flying for free records. I've planned, gotten briefed, and flown to
20-30 airports in one day before. Duats makes this less complex to
plan and brief than one might imagine.

If I was flying the quite respectable distances you overachievers do,
I'd certainly have a standard duats course which included all the
airports that were potential landouts on the way. "Crosswind runway
closed for construction" is nice to know beforehand!

Why? THE WHOLE POINT IS TO DECLARE THE FLIGHT BEFORE YOU FLY IT, THEN
FLY IT! Otherwise, you are just wandering around. Nothing wrong with
that, but it isn't a declared badge flight.

True. Again 4.2.2 makes that clear.


Mark, read more Pez, wax up the PW-5, declare a task, then go fly it -
you'll feel a lot better afterwards.

Rereading Pez is funny too...and had some fun in house thermals
Saturday. Spring is a comin'

Oh, and when you land out, get a ground retrieve, not an aerotow -
your friends will appreciate the steak dinner.

Believe it or not, I got the wife and baby at the gliderport!
And they had a blast. I dunno about this ground retrieve idea tho,
sounds sketchy to me... ;(

Kirk
66

Mark
35 (but I tell everyone I'm 21)

--

------------+
Mark Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:404e5e95$1@darkstar...

Of course not G. LOL. I'm just trying to see where the verbiage is
for each of these tasks. Keep in mind, the free 3-TP tasks seem to
allow just that, and yes, one can plan for those too, so although
it doesn't apply to the non-free tasks, such an idea isn't so farfetched
when flying for free records. I've planned, gotten briefed, and flown to
20-30 airports in one day before. Duats makes this less complex to
plan and brief than one might imagine.

If I was flying the quite respectable distances you overachievers do,
I'd certainly have a standard duats course which included all the
airports that were potential landouts on the way. "Crosswind runway
closed for construction" is nice to know beforehand.

Duats? Glider pilots don't need no stinkin Duats! We got Blipmaps!
Seriously, since I quit flying power (too boring - I got spoiled in
the AF) and went over completely to the dark side, I haven't filed a
flight plan or bothered with Duats in 10 years and almost 2000 hrs of
glider rides, XC, and racing. Wrong tool for the task. Most of the
time a flight is decided on the run, going where the weather is best
at the time, not where the weather guesser said it would be. Pretty
much blows a flightplan out of the water. Ditto Duats. Why bother?
What counts is the homework in getting to really know the local
weather and the local area (defined as anywhere you can reach on the
best possible day) - All airfields, airstrips, possible landout areas,
etc; and if required making your own accurate database for your
navigation device of choice (marked-up chart, GPS, nav computer,
whatever). It's all in the homework, as always...but hey, that's what
winter is for.
In my opinion, trying to apply your comfortable (and don't get me
wrong, absolutely proper in context) power procedures to glider XC may
be somewhat inappropriate - It really isn't comparable, and may even
be a hindrance by setting up a mindset of "I'll plan this flight, and
then I'm going to fly it no matter what!"; when the logical course of
action would be to go somewhere totally different. Of course, with a
declared badge flight, or some contest flights (AST only), you could
go the flight plan/Duats route; no harm done - But I shudder at the
concept of a "standard glider flight". I wonder if any other glider
pilots make the effort?

Believe it or not, I got the wife and baby at the gliderport!
And they had a blast. I dunno about this ground retrieve idea tho,
sounds sketchy to me... ;(

So you think the spousal unit won't enjoy a little trip in the
country, followed by a nice steak dinner? Try her, you might be
surprised! Just park the munchkin in the back of a 2-33 (behind the
back seat is my suggestion) and let her round up some big pool cleaner
types to do the heavy lifting!

Happy flights!

Kirk

Robert Danewid wrote:

Ian

Well, the short summary I received from FAI today says that it is not
for the GFAC to take the final decision on this in the future.

Now we can discuss wording - which you certainly is better at - but as
far as I and Göran Ax can interpretate the document "we won".

Cheers
Robert

And what about the gps+PDA combinations? Are they included in your
proposal?

/Janos

In article , Robert Danewid
writes
Ian

Well, the short summary I received from FAI today says that it is not
for the GFAC to take the final decision on this in the future.

GFAC did not take "the final decision" as you put it, last year either.
Last year, when the announcement was made on the application of the "all
badges" IGC-approval level, it was with the agreement of GFAC, the GNSS
Committee (chaired by Bernald Smith) and the IGC Bureau. The date of
effect was personally chosen by the then IGC President, Tor Johannessen,
although I understand that the new IGC Bureau are looking at this at the
moment, perhaps with a view to giving more time before certain older
types of recorders take up the "all badges" level.

What IGC decided last month was to confirm the general procedure adopted
last year. That is, changes of IGC-approval level have to have the
agreement not only of GFAC but also of the GNSS Committee and the IGC
Bureau. As with all Bureau and other decisions between full IGC Plenary
meetings, the Plenary (as the highest IGC body) confirms (or otherwise)
those decisions made on its behalf during the year.

As you say, detailed wording is being worked out at the moment which
will go into Annex B to the Sporting Code in due course. It will be
announced to all when the IGC Bureau (the highest IGC body between
Plenaries) has agreed it.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

Kirk Stant wrote:

(Mark James Boyd) wrote in message news:404e5e95$1@darkstar...

. Duats makes this less complex to
plan and brief than one might imagine.

If I was flying the quite respectable distances you overachievers do,
I'd certainly have a standard duats course which included all the
airports that were potential landouts on the way. "Crosswind runway
closed for construction" is nice to know beforehand.


Duats? Glider pilots don't need no stinkin Duats! We got Blipmaps!
Seriously, since I quit flying power (too boring - I got spoiled in
the AF) and went over completely to the dark side, I haven't filed a
flight plan or bothered with Duats in 10 years and almost 2000 hrs of
glider rides, XC, and racing.

So, how do you avoid a final glide to an airport that's closed for, say,
repaving? I've been surprised three times that way: two of the times
checking with Duats (or equivalent) would've avoided the problem; the
3rd time I did check and there was no NOTAM for the airport, even the
next day. Maybe I just didn't ask Duats the right question. The system
does seem easier to use now.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

So, how do you avoid a final glide to an airport that's closed for, say,
repaving? I've been surprised three times that way: two of the times
checking with Duats (or equivalent) would've avoided the problem;

Non U.S readers may skip the following

Not just NOTAMs but TFRs (Temproary Flight Restictions). With the
election campaign heating up, the prez is on the road more - and with it
come TFRs, sometimes with little notice:

Mar. 10: Cleveland, Ohio
Anticipated - Mar. 11: East Meadow, New York
Anticipated - Mar. 12-14: Thurmont, Maryland
Anticipated - Mar. 12: Cincinnati, Ohio
Anticipated - Mar. 12: Jackson, Wyoming

Bust one and you'll have a real good look at an F16 - followed by a chat
with the Secret Service.

To respond to a Bill Daniels post about some "high time pilots" not
being proficient, I can only agree and add that because a man eats all
his life, doesn't make him a gourmet.

Tony V

"Eric Greenwell" wrote in message
...


So, how do you avoid a final glide to an airport that's closed for, say,
repaving? I've been surprised three times that way: two of the times
checking with Duats (or equivalent) would've avoided the problem; the
3rd time I did check and there was no NOTAM for the airport, even the
next day. Maybe I just didn't ask Duats the right question. The system
does seem easier to use now.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA


Usually works, sometimes not.

Once on a business trip to Dallas, I landed at Arlington. Before leaving the
airport, I informed the desk attendant that I would be there all week and
depart on Friday. When I called the FBO on Friday to have the airplane
towed up to the front ramp and fueled, the lady at the desk told me, "Oh,
you can't fly today, they're paving the airport - it will be closed for two
weeks."

I exploded. I told her that I had checked all NOTAMS and informed them that
I would be leaving on Friday when I left the airplane in their care. There
wasn't even a notice posted on the FBO bulletin board.

"Well", she said with irritation, "I doesn't look like they will get started
until 9AM - you might make it out".

I did make it - barely. I don't trust NOTAMS or FBO's much anymore.

Bill Daniels