Kathrin, she got her licence last year, made a flight of total 5h 14min.

Take off and landing was on Saanen (Switzerland) at 1029m.
Release Altitude was at 13:16 on 2112m, which is a normal release altitude for
Saanen.
Last point logged above release altitude - 1000m was at 18:23 on 1117m.
This gives a duration of 5:07h.

I thought this is ok for the silver badge duration flight and signed the claim
form.

You may imagine how frustrated she was as the NAC refused to accept the flight
for the reason according:
SC3 4.4.2 Loss of height and application of the height penalty
c. For speed and duration flights, a loss of height exceeding 1000 meters will
invalidate the soaring performance.

My question, is this decision really in terms of the sporting code?

Ok, the definitions are:
DURATION 1.2.6 The time elapsed between the START TIME and the FINISH TIME.
FINISH TIME 1.2.4 The time that the SOARING PERFORMANCE finishes.
SOARING PERFORMANCE 1.1.1 The performance during that portion of a glider
flight from the START POINT to the FINISH POINT.
FINISH POINT 1.1.12 The WAY POINT marking the end of a SOARING PERFORMANCE. It
is:
a. The point at which the nose of the glider comes to rest without external
assistance after landing, or
b. A WAY POINT declared as the FINISH POINT or goal, or
c. The midpoint of a FINISH LINE, or
d. The point at which an MoP is started.

So the decision of the NAC was ok, because the altitude loss between release
and landing was 1083m, 83m to much.
However, if she would have started an MoP just bevor crossing the 1000m limit
the flight must have been accepted.

Is this not stupid?

Peter Nyffeler
(OO soaring club zurich)

Peter,

What was her altitude at the finish point? Now, be careful here.
If the finish point was the landing, when did she first enter the
"observation zone" of the finish point? Use the first GPS data point
in the observation zone as the "finish," not the point of landing.

I'm assuming from your very accurate number that this is
a GPS flight, right?

Anyway, maybe that will work. I dunno. Good luck!

P.S. One could perhaps do this to define the START point as
well. Good luck!

nyffeler > wrote:
>
>
>My question, is this decision really in terms of the sporting code?
>
>Ok, the definitions are:
>DURATION 1.2.6 The time elapsed between the START TIME and the FINISH TIME.
>FINISH TIME 1.2.4 The time that the SOARING PERFORMANCE finishes.
>SOARING PERFORMANCE 1.1.1 The performance during that portion of a glider
>flight from the START POINT to the FINISH POINT.
>FINISH POINT 1.1.12 The WAY POINT marking the end of a SOARING PERFORMANCE. It
>is:
>a. The point at which the nose of the glider comes to rest without external
>assistance after landing, or
>b. A WAY POINT declared as the FINISH POINT or goal, or
>c. The midpoint of a FINISH LINE, or
>d. The point at which an MoP is started.
>
>So the decision of the NAC was ok, because the altitude loss between release
>and landing was 1083m, 83m to much.
>However, if she would have started an MoP just bevor crossing the 1000m limit
>the flight must have been accepted.
>
>Is this not stupid?
>
>Peter Nyffeler
>(OO soaring club zurich)


--

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

nyffeler wrote:

>
> So the decision of the NAC was ok, because the altitude loss between release
> and landing was 1083m, 83m to much.
> However, if she would have started an MoP just bevor crossing the 1000m limit
> the flight must have been accepted.
>
> Is this not stupid?

I don't know if it's stupid, but it's the way the rules have been for a
long time. If you want to pick your finish, you have to declare it.

Even though I fly a motorglider, I think it is a quirk in the rules that
the powered sailplane pilot can effectively pick the end of flight by
starting the engine. I think all pilots should be able to pick a point
as the finish when the task has an undeclared end. That would cover
Silver duration flights like this one, and 'free flight' tasks.


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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

At 02:42 24 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

>If the finish point was the landing, when did she first
>enter the
>'observation zone' of the finish point? Use the first
>GPS data point
>in the observation zone as the 'finish,' not the point
>of landing.

A Finish Point OTHER than landing would have to have
been declared before flight, as would a Start Point
other than tow release. This would be unusual for a
duration flight without a concurrent cross country
claim.

When using declared Start and/or Finish Points, it's
usually advantageous for distance and duration purposes
to determine Start Altitude from the lowest data point
in the Start OZ and Finish Altitude based on the highest
data point in the Finish OZ for the 'Loss of Height'
calculations. For Speed tasks, best speed is achieved
using a Start/Finish line, defaulting to a Start/Finish
OZ only if necessary for Loss of Height purposes.

And finally, the Sporting Code provides for Loss of
Height to be measured either of two ways: Start Altitude
less Finish Altitude (per 1.2.8) OR Release Altitude
less Finish Site elevation (per 1.4.7).

Judy

Tere're a lot of things the guys from FAI and IGC still don't understand.
They think themselves being in a position where they don't have to listen to
what is happening in the real world. For the same Silver Badge you also need
a leg of 50km. But you cannot use just 'any' stretch of 50km. It has to be
one on their conditions.
Meantime the majority of european gliderpilots are flying freed distance X
country as their favourite pass time. But still the fossils at FAI and IGC
headquarters pretend such a task is not worthy of their interest.
If they continue like this, it 'll only take another few years and nobody
will remember what FAI and IGC where all about. They do cost us a lot of
money though.

Keep on flying and don't try to understand their stupid rulings. They
probably don't even understand them themselves...



"nyffeler" > schreef in bericht
...
>
> Kathrin, she got her licence last year, made a flight of total 5h 14min.
>
> Take off and landing was on Saanen (Switzerland) at 1029m.
> Release Altitude was at 13:16 on 2112m, which is a normal release altitude
for
> Saanen.
> Last point logged above release altitude - 1000m was at 18:23 on 1117m.
> This gives a duration of 5:07h.
>
> I thought this is ok for the silver badge duration flight and signed the
claim
> form.
>
> You may imagine how frustrated she was as the NAC refused to accept the
flight
> for the reason according:
> SC3 4.4.2 Loss of height and application of the height penalty
> c. For speed and duration flights, a loss of height exceeding 1000 meters
will
> invalidate the soaring performance.
>
> My question, is this decision really in terms of the sporting code?
>
> Ok, the definitions are:
> DURATION 1.2.6 The time elapsed between the START TIME and the FINISH
TIME.
> FINISH TIME 1.2.4 The time that the SOARING PERFORMANCE finishes.
> SOARING PERFORMANCE 1.1.1 The performance during that portion of a glider
> flight from the START POINT to the FINISH POINT.
> FINISH POINT 1.1.12 The WAY POINT marking the end of a SOARING
PERFORMANCE. It
> is:
> a. The point at which the nose of the glider comes to rest without
external
> assistance after landing, or
> b. A WAY POINT declared as the FINISH POINT or goal, or
> c. The midpoint of a FINISH LINE, or
> d. The point at which an MoP is started.
>
> So the decision of the NAC was ok, because the altitude loss between
release
> and landing was 1083m, 83m to much.
> However, if she would have started an MoP just bevor crossing the 1000m
limit
> the flight must have been accepted.
>
> Is this not stupid?
>
> Peter Nyffeler
> (OO soaring club zurich)

Judy Ruprecht > wrote:
>At 02:42 24 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>>If the finish point was the landing, when did she first
>>enter the
>>'observation zone' of the finish point? Use the first
>>GPS data point
>>in the observation zone as the 'finish,' not the point
>>of landing.
>
>A Finish Point OTHER than landing would have to have
>been declared before flight, as would a Start Point
>other than tow release. This would be unusual for a
>duration flight without a concurrent cross country
>claim.
>
>When using declared Start and/or Finish Points, it's
>usually advantageous for distance and duration purposes
>to determine Start Altitude from the lowest data point
>in the Start OZ and Finish Altitude based on the highest
>data point in the Finish OZ for the 'Loss of Height'
>calculations. For Speed tasks, best speed is achieved
>using a Start/Finish line, defaulting to a Start/Finish
>OZ only if necessary for Loss of Height purposes.
>
>And finally, the Sporting Code provides for Loss of
>Height to be measured either of two ways: Start Altitude
>less Finish Altitude (per 1.2.8) OR Release Altitude
>less Finish Site elevation (per 1.4.7).
>
>Judy

I'm confused. Are you saying if the finish point
is declared as a point, rather than "landing", it
has an OZ.

But if the finish point is "landing" then there is no OZ?

Hmmm...I don't see this in the SC. A Way Point, including a
Finish Point, is defined by grid coordinates, not
altitude. The altitude is determined from a recorded
point in the OZ, which is "a 90 degree sector...
symmetrical to and remote from the inbound leg."

I can't see anything at all which prevents a pilot from circling an
airport of intended landing, passing through what will soon become
the OZ, and then landing on the runway, and using the highest
point in the instant OZ as the finish altitude.

I don't see why one must chose 1.1.11(a) as the finish.
Instead the landing is the finish point, and 1.1.11(b)
(a point in the OZ) can be the finish.

Don't get me wrong, if she didn't go into the OZ of her own
landing (like a straight in instead) then this is all moot,
right? But she certainly has a leg, and an OZ for the start
and finish points, so I can't see how it differs from the
declared idea Judy presented.

I'm not saying I'm right (clearly I am WRONG, at least in the USA,
since this has evidently come up before), but I don't see the
wording that prohibits it...

And especially in light of Eric's comment, it
certainly seems fairer to have it be this way,

Otherwise everyone will buy a tiny, very noisy model motor and prop
and turn it on right before landing :PPP
--

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

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> Peter,
>
> What was her altitude at the finish point? Now, be careful here.
> If the finish point was the landing, when did she first enter the
> "observation zone" of the finish point? Use the first GPS data point
> in the observation zone as the "finish," not the point of landing.

the problem is that there is no "inbound leg" thus no observation zone
for the finish point... sort of another bug in the Code Sportif ;-)

Anyway, since there is no barograph required for the 5 h duration, I
would say that the claim should be validated...



--
Denis

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

Denis wrote:
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> Peter,
>>
>> What was her altitude at the finish point? Now, be careful here.
>> If the finish point was the landing, when did she first enter the
>> "observation zone" of the finish point? Use the first GPS data point
>> in the observation zone as the "finish," not the point of landing.
>
>
> the problem is that there is no "inbound leg" thus no observation zone
> for the finish point... sort of another bug in the Code Sportif ;-)

A start point was established when the pilot releases, so perhaps that
could be used as to establish an inbound leg to the Finish Point
(1.1.12a. The point at which the nose of the glider comes to rest
without external assistance after landing, or). I'm not aware of using
these undeclared points in this fashion, and it's not clear from my
reading of the rules that this can be done.

Clearly the NAC used the usual "end of soaring performance" criteria:
the landing. This was all that could be done before GPS recorders
without observed finish lines, and thousands have done their Silver
duration by this criteria. Should we fault them for not being more
"creative" in establishing an observation zone after the fact?

I suggest that this is a quirk in the rules that wasn't noticed as GPS
was incorporated into the rules. There are other situations now made
possible by GPS that would be affected by this; for example, instead of
a distance flight ending at the landing, the pilot could turn back and
land at an airport, but still get credit for the distance achieved where
he flew beyond the airport.

I suggest the pilot be allowed to pick the finish point from any fix in
a flight not using declared waypoints, so lobby your representative for
this change.




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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

>the problem is that there is no "inbound leg" thus no observation zone
>for the finish point... sort of another bug in the Code Sportif ;-)
>--
>Denis

Huh? The glider had to start SOMEWHERE. So draw a line from the
start to the finish. There's the inbound leg.

Again, I'm making this up as I go along. I'm not an authority on this
stuff. Judy is the USA NAC...
--

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

Eric Greenwell wrote:

> I suggest the pilot be allowed to pick the finish point from any fix in
> a flight not using declared waypoints, so lobby your representative for
> this change.

He is already allowed to do this - by "declaring" the way point
post-flight. But only for free distance records. I agree that it should
be extended to free (ie non-goal) badge distances

--
Denis

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