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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
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... |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
16 Aug 2004 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 17th 04 12:37 AM |
AVSIM News Update | Eric Lunston | Simulators | 16 | August 15th 04 04:49 AM |
Weak Dollar (Bad News - Good News) | JJ Sinclair | Soaring | 6 | January 27th 04 03:06 AM |
07 Aug 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | August 8th 03 02:51 AM |