WGC2012 Uvalde Scoring

[Muttley]

I am just wondering what the closer details of the following are
in the Scoring 18m Class Day 8
RB is scored at 35.9km due to Hazardous Maneuvre. Must have been
serious??

[RN]

Would appreciate a tip on where you are finding the results.
The "Official" site is showing "Warning: Number of competition pilots
launched is zero "
Thanks

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 08:01:54 UTC-5, Muttley wrote:
> I am just wondering what the closer details of the following are
>
> in the Scoring 18m Class Day 8
>
> RB is scored at 35.9km due to Hazardous Maneuvre. Must have been
>
> serious??

I encourage you to down load the flight log and perform the analysis.

Ron Gleason

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Aug 14, 10:05*am, Ron Gleason > wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 08:01:54 UTC-5, Muttley *wrote:
> > I am just wondering what the closer details of the following are
>
> > in the Scoring 18m Class Day 8
>
> > RB is scored at 35.9km due to Hazardous Maneuvre. Must have been
>
> > serious??
>
> I encourage you to down load the flight log and perform the analysis.
>
> Ron Gleason

I see a 500' zoomie.

[Luke Szczepaniak]

On 08/14/2012 9:45 AM, RN wrote:
> Would appreciate a tip on where you are finding the results.
> The "Official" site is showing "Warning: Number of competition pilots
> launched is zero "
> Thanks
>
The scores are posted on Naviter's Soaring Spot web page

http://soaringspot.com/wgc20112/results/

Cheers,
Luke Szczepaniak

[soartech[_2_]]

Evan says:

> I see a 500' zoomie.

What is a "zoomie" and what's so bad about it?

[BobD]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:26:02 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote:
> Evan says:
>
>
>
> > I see a 500' zoomie.
>
>
>
> What is a "zoomie" and what's so bad about it?

I'm assuming he finished 500' below the finish cylinder edge and zoomed up to kill speed and gain altitude for getting to the pattern. In previous tasks they've declared a 15k cylinder with a 3,000ft minimum altitude base. They do this because weather had forecasted a gust front from approaching T-storms to the north of Uvalde. They want to give the pilot the option to get a valid finish then break off a glide to the airport should the gusts get strong. The breakoff would then be a decision to landout or go to another air strip. Hitting the 15k cylinder and keeping yourself at 3,000agl+ is tricky as most have never done final glides to a target like that. The "zoomie" is dangerous at any finish cylinder because you're zooming up at what might be the majority of gliders finishing above the floor limit. Hence the penalty points.

[Tony[_5_]]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:51:22 PM UTC-5, BobD wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:26:02 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote: > Evan says: > > > > > I see a 500' zoomie. > > > > What is a "zoomie" and what's so bad about it? I'm assuming he finished 500' below the finish cylinder edge and zoomed up to kill speed and gain altitude for getting to the pattern. In previous tasks they've declared a 15k cylinder with a 3,000ft minimum altitude base. They do this because weather had forecasted a gust front from approaching T-storms to the north of Uvalde. They want to give the pilot the option to get a valid finish then break off a glide to the airport should the gusts get strong. The breakoff would then be a decision to landout or go to another air strip. Hitting the 15k cylinder and keeping yourself at 3,000agl+ is tricky as most have never done final glides to a target like that.. The "zoomie" is dangerous at any finish cylinder because you're zooming up at what might be the majority of gliders finishing above the floor limit. Hence the penalty points.

the dangerous action was at 15:24, about 14 minutes after he started.

[BobD]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:57:31 PM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:51:22 PM UTC-5, BobD wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:26:02 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote: > Evan says: > > > > > I see a 500' zoomie. > > > > What is a "zoomie" and what's so bad about it? I'm assuming he finished 500' below the finish cylinder edge and zoomed up to kill speed and gain altitude for getting to the pattern. In previous tasks they've declared a 15k cylinder with a 3,000ft minimum altitude base. They do this because weather had forecasted a gust front from approaching T-storms to the north of Uvalde. They want to give the pilot the option to get a valid finish then break off a glide to the airport should the gusts get strong. The breakoff would then be a decision to landout or go to another air strip. Hitting the 15k cylinder and keeping yourself at 3,000agl+ is tricky as most have never done final glides to a target like that. The "zoomie" is dangerous at any finish cylinder because you're zooming up at what might be the majority of gliders finishing above the floor limit. Hence the penalty points.
>
>
>
> the dangerous action was at 15:24, about 14 minutes after he started.

They of course will penalize the low finish zoom up. But maybe they're looking at files and if they determine a serious zoom up into a thermal--and someone cries foul for a near miss, then maybe they tag that. I dunno beyond that.

[[email protected]]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:57:31 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:51:22 PM UTC-5, BobD wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:26:02 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote: > Evan says: > > > > > I see a 500' zoomie. > > > > What is a "zoomie" and what's so bad about it? I'm assuming he finished 500' below the finish cylinder edge and zoomed up to kill speed and gain altitude for getting to the pattern. In previous tasks they've declared a 15k cylinder with a 3,000ft minimum altitude base. They do this because weather had forecasted a gust front from approaching T-storms to the north of Uvalde. They want to give the pilot the option to get a valid finish then break off a glide to the airport should the gusts get strong. The breakoff would then be a decision to landout or go to another air strip. Hitting the 15k cylinder and keeping yourself at 3,000agl+ is tricky as most have never done final glides to a target like that. The "zoomie" is dangerous at any finish cylinder because you're zooming up at what might be the majority of gliders finishing above the floor limit. Hence the penalty points. the dangerous action was at 15:24, about 14 minutes after he started.

This is consistent with a very agressive pull up into a thermal, likely occupied by a gaggle, and triggering a safety complaint, followed by appropriate invesygation and review.
Speculation on my part.
Bet this calms things down quick
UH

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 16:32:02 UTC-5, (unknown) wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:57:31 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:51:22 PM UTC-5, BobD wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:26:02 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote: > Evan says: > > > > > I see a 500' zoomie. > > > > What is a "zoomie" and what's so bad about it? I'm assuming he finished 500' below the finish cylinder edge and zoomed up to kill speed and gain altitude for getting to the pattern. In previous tasks they've declared a 15k cylinder with a 3,000ft minimum altitude base. They do this because weather had forecasted a gust front from approaching T-storms to the north of Uvalde. They want to give the pilot the option to get a valid finish then break off a glide to the airport should the gusts get strong. The breakoff would then be a decision to landout or go to another air strip. Hitting the 15k cylinder and keeping yourself at 3,000agl+ is tricky as most have never done final glides to a target like that. The "zoomie" is dangerous at any finish cylinder because you're zooming up at what might be the majority of gliders finishing above the floor limit. Hence the penalty points. the dangerous action was at 15:24, about 14 minutes after he started.
>
>
>
> This is consistent with a very agressive pull up into a thermal, likely occupied by a gaggle, and triggering a safety complaint, followed by appropriate invesygation and review.
>
> Speculation on my part.
>
> Bet this calms things down quick
>
> UH

The discussion so far has no identified the REAL problem. I encourage you to download the flight, define the task and have all flight parameters defined and figure out the serious penalty, which is in fact a zero for the day, because it is not the first time this pilot has done this infraction during the competition, including practice days.

yes I know the answer but you serious RAS folks should be able to figure this out on your own.

Ron Gleason

[Wojciech Scigala]

Użytkownik Ron Gleason napisał:

> The discussion so far has no identified the REAL problem. I encourage you to download the flight, define the task and have all flight parameters defined and figure out the serious penalty, which is in fact a zero for the day, because it is not the first time this pilot has done this infraction during the competition, including practice days.
>
> yes I know the answer but you serious RAS folks should be able to figure this out on your own.
"I know but I won't tell" does not help to build safety culture. I'm
watching the log (downloaded from Soaringspot) and all I can see is a
"zoomie" at 15:24:06. Can't tell if there was a near-miss without
watching all files simultaneously.

I also can't find any sporting flaw which would zero the day.

--
Wojtuś

[Ron Gleason]

On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 18:31:17 UTC-5, Wojciech Scigala wrote:
> Użytkownik Ron Gleason napisał:
>
>
>
> > The discussion so far has no identified the REAL problem. I encourage you to download the flight, define the task and have all flight parameters defined and figure out the serious penalty, which is in fact a zero for the day, because it is not the first time this pilot has done this infraction during the competition, including practice days.
>
> >
>
> > yes I know the answer but you serious RAS folks should be able to figure this out on your own.
>
> "I know but I won't tell" does not help to build safety culture. I'm
>
> watching the log (downloaded from Soaringspot) and all I can see is a
>
> "zoomie" at 15:24:06. Can't tell if there was a near-miss without
>
> watching all files simultaneously.
>
>
>
> I also can't find any sporting flaw which would zero the day.
>
>
>
> --
>
> Wojtuś

There was an airspace violation. Annex A states these penalties are cumulative. 2nd occurrence for this pilot.

Shame on RAS pilots for not figuring this out

Ron

[John Cochrane[_2_]]

On Aug 14, 5:35*pm, Ron Gleason > wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 16:32:02 UTC-5, (unknown) *wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:57:31 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
>
> > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:51:22 PM UTC-5, BobD wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:26:02 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote: > Evan says: > > > > > I see a 500' zoomie. > > > > What is a "zoomie" and what's so bad about it? I'm assuming he finished 500' below the finish cylinder edge and zoomed up to kill speed and gain altitude for getting to the pattern. In previous tasks they've declared a 15k cylinder with a 3,000ft minimum altitude base. They do this because weather had forecasted a gust front from approaching T-storms to the north of Uvalde. They want to give the pilot the option to get a valid finish then break off a glide to the airport should the gusts get strong. The breakoff would then be a decision to landout or go to another air strip. Hitting the 15k cylinder and keeping yourself at 3,000agl+ is tricky as most have never done final glides to a target like that. The "zoomie" is dangerous at any finish cylinder because you're zooming up at what might be the majority of gliders finishing above the floor limit. Hence the penalty points. the dangerous action was at 15:24, about 14 minutes after he started.
>
> > This is consistent with a very agressive pull up into a thermal, likely occupied by a gaggle, and triggering a safety complaint, followed by appropriate invesygation and review.
>
> > Speculation on my part.
>
> > Bet this calms things down quick
>
> > UH
>
> The discussion so far has no identified the REAL problem. *I encourage you to download the flight, define the task and have all flight parameters defined and figure out the serious penalty, which is in fact a zero for the day, because it is not the first time this pilot has done this infraction during the competition, including practice days.
>
> yes I know the answer but you serious RAS folks should be able to figure this out on your own.
>
> Ron Gleason

Ron:
Why all the secrecy? Surely this is public information at WGC.

[Duster]

On Aug 14, 9:18*pm, John Cochrane >
wrote:
> On Aug 14, 5:35*pm, Ron Gleason > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 16:32:02 UTC-5, (unknown) *wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 4:57:31 PM UTC-4, Tony wrote:
>
> > > > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:51:22 PM UTC-5, BobD wrote: > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 3:26:02 PM UTC-5, soartech wrote: > Evan says: > > > > > I see a 500' zoomie. > > > > What is a "zoomie" and what's so bad about it? I'm assuming he finished 500' below the finish cylinder edge and zoomed up to kill speed and gain altitude for getting to the pattern. In previous tasks they've declared a 15k cylinder with a 3,000ft minimum altitude base.. They do this because weather had forecasted a gust front from approaching T-storms to the north of Uvalde. They want to give the pilot the option to get a valid finish then break off a glide to the airport should the gusts get strong. The breakoff would then be a decision to landout or go to another air strip. Hitting the 15k cylinder and keeping yourself at 3,000agl+ is tricky as most have never done final glides to a target like that. The "zoomie" is dangerous at any finish cylinder because you're zooming up at what might be the majority of gliders finishing above the floor limit. Hence the penalty points. the dangerous action was at 15:24, about 14 minutes after he started.
>
> > > This is consistent with a very agressive pull up into a thermal, likely occupied by a gaggle, and triggering a safety complaint, followed by appropriate invesygation and review.
>
> > > Speculation on my part.
>
> > > Bet this calms things down quick
>
> > > UH
>
> > The discussion so far has no identified the REAL problem. *I encourage you to download the flight, define the task and have all flight parameters defined and figure out the serious penalty, which is in fact a zero for the day, because it is not the first time this pilot has done this infraction during the competition, including practice days.
>
> > yes I know the answer but you serious RAS folks should be able to figure this out on your own.
>
> > Ron Gleason
>
> Ron:
> Why all the secrecy? Surely this is public information at WGC.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Maybe the process of solving the problem on our own helps consolidate
the point in our brain rather than just being spoon-fed?

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:08:13 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 18:31:17 UTC-5, Wojciech Scigala wrote:
>
> > Użytkownik Ron Gleason napisał:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > The discussion so far has no identified the REAL problem. I encourage you to download the flight, define the task and have all flight parameters defined and figure out the serious penalty, which is in fact a zero for the day, because it is not the first time this pilot has done this infraction during the competition, including practice days.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > yes I know the answer but you serious RAS folks should be able to figure this out on your own.
>
> >
>
> > "I know but I won't tell" does not help to build safety culture. I'm
>
> >
>
> > watching the log (downloaded from Soaringspot) and all I can see is a
>
> >
>
> > "zoomie" at 15:24:06. Can't tell if there was a near-miss without
>
> >
>
> > watching all files simultaneously.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I also can't find any sporting flaw which would zero the day.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> >
>
> > Wojtuś
>
>
>
> There was an airspace violation. Annex A states these penalties are cumulative. 2nd occurrence for this pilot.
>
>
>
> Shame on RAS pilots for not figuring this out
>
>
>
> Ron

I am lost, if something happened at 15:24:06 with RB I am missing what it was. No airspace there to bust, just MOAs.

Darryl

[Tony[_5_]]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:36:04 PM UTC-5, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 5:08:13 PM UTC-7, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, 14 August 2012 18:31:17 UTC-5, Wojciech Scigala wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > Użytkownik Ron Gleason napisał:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > The discussion so far has no identified the REAL problem. I encourage you to download the flight, define the task and have all flight parameters defined and figure out the serious penalty, which is in fact a zero for the day, because it is not the first time this pilot has done this infraction during the competition, including practice days.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > yes I know the answer but you serious RAS folks should be able to figure this out on your own.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > "I know but I won't tell" does not help to build safety culture. I'm
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > watching the log (downloaded from Soaringspot) and all I can see is a
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > "zoomie" at 15:24:06. Can't tell if there was a near-miss without
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > watching all files simultaneously.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I also can't find any sporting flaw which would zero the day.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > --
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Wojtuś
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > There was an airspace violation. Annex A states these penalties are cumulative. 2nd occurrence for this pilot.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Shame on RAS pilots for not figuring this out
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ron
>
>
>
> I am lost, if something happened at 15:24:06 with RB I am missing what it was. No airspace there to bust, just MOAs.
>
>
>
> Darryl

the contest is using an airspace file that is available from the turnpoint exchange. part of the MOA is prohibited airspace during the week and the pilot in question clipped the corner of it between circle #1 and circle #2.

[JP Stewart]

> I am lost, if something happened at 15:24:06 with RB I am missing what it was. No airspace there to bust, just MOAs.
>
>
>
> Darryl

I thought that too except I found this interesting about open class day 8 task: "About the open class task:
After 180 km. the pilots enter the cylinder of Toledo. The CENTER of this cylinder is a forbidden airspace are. Pilots were warned to keep an eye on that.The next leg is 79 km. and then back over 112 km.
370 km. [min.299km. max 447 km] and time 2.30"

JP

[Tony[_5_]]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:20:02 PM UTC-5, Jp Stewart wrote:
> > I am lost, if something happened at 15:24:06 with RB I am missing what it was. No airspace there to bust, just MOAs.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Darryl
>
>
>
> I thought that too except I found this interesting about open class day 8 task: "About the open class task:
>
> After 180 km. the pilots enter the cylinder of Toledo. The CENTER of this cylinder is a forbidden airspace are. Pilots were warned to keep an eye on that.The next leg is 79 km. and then back over 112 km.
>
> 370 km. [min.299km. max 447 km] and time 2.30"
>
>
>
> JP

It was actually Laredo, and 18 meter had a similar task last week where the circle was really a donut, except that Laredo is on the Mexican border so the donut is really about a half donut.

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:23:39 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:20:02 PM UTC-5, Jp Stewart wrote:
>
> > > I am lost, if something happened at 15:24:06 with RB I am missing what it was. No airspace there to bust, just MOAs.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > Darryl
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > I thought that too except I found this interesting about open class day 8 task: "About the open class task:
>
> >
>
> > After 180 km. the pilots enter the cylinder of Toledo. The CENTER of this cylinder is a forbidden airspace are. Pilots were warned to keep an eye on that.The next leg is 79 km. and then back over 112 km.
>
> >
>
> > 370 km. [min.299km. max 447 km] and time 2.30"
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > JP
>
>
>
> It was actually Laredo, and 18 meter had a similar task last week where the circle was really a donut, except that Laredo is on the Mexican border so the donut is really about a half donut.


This is all clear as mud.

It was Laredo what? He did not get close to the LOREDO CLASS D. You mean the CRYSTAL MOA centered on Laredo?

What exact time (nearest second) CDST did the violation occur and in what exact named airspace volume (proper FAA name please)? The score sheet says 15:24:06 (presumably CDST). But nothing is occurring exactly at that time. Around 15:19:46 CDST the glider climbs into the LAUGHLIN 2 MOA briefly (base of which is 7,001' MSL, but is just an MOA and therefore not an airspace violation per-se). Around 15:25:34 the glider passes from under LAUGHLIN 2 MOA to under LAUGLIN 3 MOA, around 16:00:12 the glider climbs though 6,000' into LAUGLIN 3 MOA. These are all just MOAs was there a NOTAM/TFR out modifying these or was additional contest airspace restrictions that are not in the airspace files or not FAA NOTAMed? it would really help to make that info available publicly.

See it would just be easir to give a nice precise explanatory answer instead of playing guessing games. Even better if the scorer (yes I know he's damn busy) had made clear what the penalty was and when it actually occurred.

Darryl

[Darryl Ramm]

On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 9:18:13 PM UTC-7, Darryl Ramm wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 8:23:39 PM UTC-7, Tony wrote:
>
> > On Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:20:02 PM UTC-5, Jp Stewart wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > > I am lost, if something happened at 15:24:06 with RB I am missing what it was. No airspace there to bust, just MOAs.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > > Darryl
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > I thought that too except I found this interesting about open class day 8 task: "About the open class task:
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > After 180 km. the pilots enter the cylinder of Toledo. The CENTER of this cylinder is a forbidden airspace are. Pilots were warned to keep an eye on that.The next leg is 79 km. and then back over 112 km.
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > 370 km. [min.299km. max 447 km] and time 2.30"
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > JP
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > It was actually Laredo, and 18 meter had a similar task last week where the circle was really a donut, except that Laredo is on the Mexican border so the donut is really about a half donut.
>
>
>
>
>
> This is all clear as mud.
>
>
>
> It was Laredo what? He did not get close to the LOREDO CLASS D. You mean the CRYSTAL MOA centered on Laredo?
>
>
>
> What exact time (nearest second) CDST did the violation occur and in what exact named airspace volume (proper FAA name please)? The score sheet says 15:24:06 (presumably CDST). But nothing is occurring exactly at that time. Around 15:19:46 CDST the glider climbs into the LAUGHLIN 2 MOA briefly (base of which is 7,001' MSL, but is just an MOA and therefore not an airspace violation per-se). Around 15:25:34 the glider passes from under LAUGHLIN 2 MOA to under LAUGLIN 3 MOA, around 16:00:12 the glider climbs though 6,000' into LAUGLIN 3 MOA. These are all just MOAs was there a NOTAM/TFR out modifying these or was additional contest airspace restrictions that are not in the airspace files or not FAA NOTAMed? it would really help to make that info available publicly.
>
>
>
> See it would just be easir to give a nice precise explanatory answer instead of playing guessing games. Even better if the scorer (yes I know he's damn busy) had made clear what the penalty was and when it actually occurred..
>
>
>
> Darryl

OK with my airspace set to the correct M-F ones, not the weekend one, doh. I now see that around 15:24:02 CDST the glider clips the corner of the WGC-MOA-2 airspace claiming to be prohibited in the M-F airspace file. I'm not sure if that actually maps to a prohibited/NOTAMed FAA airspace or more I suspect is a prohibition the CD called.

Thanks

Darryl

[David Leonard]

On 8/14/2012 11:18 PM, Darryl Ramm wrote:

>
> This is all clear as mud.
>
> It was Laredo what? He did not get close to the LOREDO CLASS D. You mean the CRYSTAL MOA centered on Laredo?
>
> What exact time (nearest second) CDST did the violation occur and in what exact named airspace volume (proper FAA name please)? The score sheet says 15:24:06 (presumably CDST). But nothing is occurring exactly at that time. Around 15:19:46 CDST the glider climbs into the LAUGHLIN 2 MOA briefly (base of which is 7,001' MSL, but is just an MOA and therefore not an airspace violation per-se). Around 15:25:34 the glider passes from under LAUGHLIN 2 MOA to under LAUGLIN 3 MOA, around 16:00:12 the glider climbs though 6,000' into LAUGLIN 3 MOA. These are all just MOAs was there a NOTAM/TFR out modifying these or was additional contest airspace restrictions that are not in the airspace files or not FAA NOTAMed? it would really help to make that info available publicly.
>
> See it would just be easir to give a nice precise explanatory answer instead of playing guessing games. Even better if the scorer (yes I know he's damn busy) had made clear what the penalty was and when it actually occurred.
>
> Darryl
>
Its not an FAA airspace violation. Its WGC contest specific. One of the
really active MOAs is prohibited to contest gliders on week days during
the contest. We stay out of their low altitude MOAs and they stay above
us in their other MOAs. An agreement worked out before the contest to
minimize chances of disaster.

ZL

[Muttley]

If this has been an Airspace infringement the description in the scoring of
"Hazardous Maneuvre" is rather unfair on the pilot and misleading the public
at large.

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 15 August 2012 06:46:21 UTC-5, Muttley wrote:
> If this has been an Airspace infringement the description in the scoring of
>
> "Hazardous Maneuvre" is rather unfair on the pilot and misleading the public
>
> at large.

The wording used is developed and approved by contest management, as scorers we just follow the guide lines.

Ron

[Muttley]

On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:03:07 PM UTC+1, Ron Gleason wrote:
> On Wednesday, 15 August 2012 06:46:21 UTC-5, Muttley wrote:
>
> > If this has been an Airspace infringement the description in the scoring of
>
> >
>
> > "Hazardous Maneuvre" is rather unfair on the pilot and misleading the public
>
> >
>
> > at large.


>
>
>
> The wording used is developed and approved by contest management, as scorers we just follow the guide lines.
>
>
>
> Ron

Hi Ron

You are absolutely correct. Annex A Par. 8.7 List of Approved Penalties states under

Dangerous or hazardous flying
(entering forbidden airspace vertically or horizontally)
first Offence outlanded at point of airspace entry.

However I just personally feel that " Airspace violation " may have been a
more appropriate description of the penalty rather than the implied Hazardous
Maneuvre.

Bruno

[Ron Gleason]

On Wednesday, 15 August 2012 07:47:53 UTC-5, Muttley wrote:
> On Wednesday, August 15, 2012 1:03:07 PM UTC+1, Ron Gleason wrote:
>
> > On Wednesday, 15 August 2012 06:46:21 UTC-5, Muttley wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > If this has been an Airspace infringement the description in the scoring of
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > "Hazardous Maneuvre" is rather unfair on the pilot and misleading the public
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > at large.
>
>
>
>
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > The wording used is developed and approved by contest management, as scorers we just follow the guide lines.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Ron
>
>
>
> Hi Ron
>
>
>
> You are absolutely correct. Annex A Par. 8.7 List of Approved Penalties states under
>
>
>
> Dangerous or hazardous flying
>
> (entering forbidden airspace vertically or horizontally)
>
> first Offence outlanded at point of airspace entry.
>
>
>
> However I just personally feel that " Airspace violation " may have been a
>
> more appropriate description of the penalty rather than the implied Hazardous
>
> Maneuvre.
>
>
>
> Bruno

Agree with you Bruno but I am just an Indian.