WGC Club Class Day 2 Scoring

[Papa3[_2_]]

Can someone explain this one to me:

http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/results/club/daily/day2.html

[Nick Hill[_3_]]

On 09/01/2013 12:48, Papa3 wrote:
> Can someone explain this one to me:
>
> http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/results/club/daily/day2.html
>

1) 248.5km task
2) They all landed out
3) Dist column looks like actual distance without Handicap applied
4) Ordering/Point is calculated from the calculated handicapped distance
(which is not shown)

If the Hcap is applied to the Dist column you get the following. I've
added the HDist, Handicapped distance column:

Hcap Dist HDist Points
1 KY Branko Stojkovic SER Cirrus 75 100 245.10 245.10 963
2 7 Arndt Hovestadt GER Std. Libelle 99 240.00 242.42 953
3 JR Luca Urbani ITA Std. Cirrus 100 240.20 240.20 944
4 AA Tim Kuijpers NED Cirrus 75 100 240.00 240.00 943
4 IF Roman Mracek CZE Std. Cirrus 100 239.90 239.90 943
6 RC Louis Bouderlique FRA Std. Jantar 2 101 240.60 238.22 936
7 BX Marco Barth GER LS 1f 101 239.90 237.52 934
..
..
..
..
..


--

Nick Hill

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Jan 9, 7:13*am, Nick Hill > wrote:
> On 09/01/2013 12:48, Papa3 wrote:
>
> > Can someone explain this one to me:
>
> >http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/results/club/daily/day2.html
>
> 1) 248.5km task
> 2) They all landed out
> 3) Dist column looks like actual distance without Handicap applied
> 4) Ordering/Point is calculated from the calculated handicapped distance
> (which is not shown)
>
> If the Hcap is applied to the Dist column you get the following. I've
> added the HDist, Handicapped distance column:
>
> * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Hcap * *Dist * *HDist * Points
> 1 KY Branko Stojkovic * SER Cirrus 75 * 100 * * 245.10 *245.10 *963
> 2 7 *Arndt Hovestadt * *GER Std. Libelle 99 * * 240.00 *242.42 *953
> 3 JR Luca Urbani * * * *ITA Std. Cirrus 100 * * 240.20 *240..20 *944
> 4 AA Tim Kuijpers * * * NED Cirrus 75 * 100 * * 240.00 *240..00 *943
> 4 IF Roman Mracek * * * CZE Std. Cirrus 100 * * 239.90 *239.90 *943
> 6 RC Louis Bouderlique *FRA Std. Jantar 2 101 * 240.60 *238.22 *936
> 7 BX Marco Barth * * * *GER LS 1f * * * 101 * * 239.90 *237.52 *934
> .
> .
> .
> .
> .
>
> --
>
> Nick Hill

Interesting scoresheet. The start gate opens at least at 14:14, but
the poor guy who started then did a lawn dart all on his own. Second
start 14:17 seems to have gotten over run by the gaggle, but at least
made some distance with them. The gaggle sits around playing who is
going to go first until 14:50 or so...and then all proceed to land out
together. Still, under IGC rules, sitting around for 3/4 of an hour,
guranteeing a mass landout, is the right thing to do.

Standard class

http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/results/standard/daily/day2.html

also has first start 15:22 promptly lawn-dart, and second starts 15:34
end up middle of the pack. Otherwise, the daily position is almost
inverse to the start time, with the winners starting 15:54 (15:54!
after waiting at least a half an hour!) ... except for the poor US
team who played the game just a bit too well, starting at 15:59 and,
from the looks of the scoresheet, not quite catching the gaggle.

Disclaimer, I'm sitting in my office in Chicago and just reading
scoresheets. But boy, do they seem to suggest how important start
games and gaggles are to IGC flying! Looking forward to John Good's
acerbic analysis.

John Cochrane

[Fox Sierra]

BB,

Your keen insights as a professor of risk and volatility are needed here! How is it possible that so many gliders land within a few kilometers of the finish with a standard deviation of achieved distances of only a few kilometers!?!?!? Assuming there was not a wall of rain blocking the landing zone, wouldn't a few gliders be expected to have the extra 100 meters of altitude required??
FS

[Bernie[_4_]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 9:02:29 AM UTC+11, Fox Sierra wrote:
> BB,
>
>
>
> Your keen insights as a professor of risk and volatility are needed here! How is it possible that so many gliders land within a few kilometers of the finish with a standard deviation of achieved distances of only a few kilometers!?!?!? Assuming there was not a wall of rain blocking the landing zone, wouldn't a few gliders be expected to have the extra 100 meters of altitude required??
>
> FS

From Australian team pilot Craig Collings:
" Today we gridded on the North end of the airfield with a strong northerly blowing. At the briefing the weatherman said he expected it to move around to the south; which it did, strong from the north to strong from the south! Wind is the theme.
The club class task was over set for the conditions at 248km, will all of the pilots landing out. Tobi and I started early again, 30 minutes after the start open, and had trouble staying together on the first leg (100km into a 30+km/h wind). We were flying alone and after a couple of hours I was the first to get picked up by the gaggle, Tobi was still about 17km ahead. Around 5pm the thermal weakened significantly and the gaggle (about 20 gliders) was taking every thermal from varying from 0.5 to 1.5 knots and rising to 3300ft; we still had about 70km to run of which 50km was into a head wind. Eventually we picked up Tobi and took the last flew climbs in the dying day. Landing at 7pm, I made the furtherest distance, 5.8km from the airfield. After handicaps were applied we came 10th and 11th for the day."

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:02:29 PM UTC-6, Fox Sierra wrote:
> BB,
>
>
>
> Your keen insights as a professor of risk and volatility are needed here! How is it possible that so many gliders land within a few kilometers of the finish with a standard deviation of achieved distances of only a few kilometers!?!?!? Assuming there was not a wall of rain blocking the landing zone, wouldn't a few gliders be expected to have the extra 100 meters of altitude required??
>
> FS

Big gaggle in desperation conditions, can't quite make the finish. A similar thing happened at Szeged. Under IGC rules, if you're with the lead gaggle of 20 gliders 1000' short of final glide, you do NOT leave. You stay with the gaggle. If the thermal dies and you're circling down .5 knots, you stay with the gaggle. If one guy leaves and lands out, but the others make it back, he's toast. If the gaggle all lands out, they all get 1000 points. Even if the lone wolf makes it back, he gets next to extra points for doing so.. From the Australian report, it sounds like this is exactly what happened -- a lead gaggle of 20 coalesced, and all landed together. Of course, had they not spent 45 minutes playing start games it would have ended differently. But that game has to be played too under IGC rules. And people want to do this in the US....Ok, off soap box for now.

[Sean F (F2)]

If you listened to John and the RC you would think all another countries would have Ero participation and piles of wreckage every day they fly...

Crusade on...

[Sean F (F2)]

Ero was meant to be zero.

Spellchecker...

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 9:58:24 PM UTC-8, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> If you listened to John and the RC you would think all another countries would have zEro participation and piles of wreckage every day they fly...
>
>
>
> Crusade on...

Sean, It is obvious they are tasking too long with the high landouts. The silly "peleton" strategy of staying with the gaggle makes for dull racing. Franke and Arnold are doing very well.
Richard Walters

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

More FAI rules silliness: http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg

T8

[Tony[_5_]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29:20 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> More FAI rules silliness: http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg
>
>
>
> T8

a Rule that creates an incentive for that kind of behavior is pretty silly I think, but I don't see any igc file in the club class mass landout on Day 2 that backs up the story. Perhaps it was a story of what they would've done, or had done at some time in the past.

[Evan Ludeman[_4_]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:12:12 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29:20 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > More FAI rules silliness: http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > T8
>
>
>
> a Rule that creates an incentive for that kind of behavior is pretty silly I think, but I don't see any igc file in the club class mass landout on Day 2 that backs up the story. Perhaps it was a story of what they would've done, or had done at some time in the past.

I can't find it, either. With the finish height as low as it is, it's a pretty thin edge, even as edge cases go. Hmph. Never trust a yankee to come up with a good story that's true.

T8

[Jerzy]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:22:04 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:12:12 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>
> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29:20 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> >
>
> > > More FAI rules silliness: http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > > T8
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > a Rule that creates an incentive for that kind of behavior is pretty silly I think, but I don't see any igc file in the club class mass landout on Day 2 that backs up the story. Perhaps it was a story of what they would've done, or had done at some time in the past.
>
>
>
> I can't find it, either. With the finish height as low as it is, it's a pretty thin edge, even as edge cases go. Hmph. Never trust a yankee to come up with a good story that's true.
>
>
>
> T8

I'm very surprised how IGC rules are negatively presented to pilots which didn't have opportunity to fly them .
Claiming that IGC rules are responsible for gaggles and are more dangerous is not correct.

The best of the best are flying in the Worlds.
Pilots skill level is almost the same , performance of the gliders is the same, the only difference is small difference in achieved task speed or distance. The best way to gain is to outsmart opponent and to do that is to start 20 seconds later and finish at the same time or to gain just fraction of altitude or gain extra distance. Because in US contests pilots level is over the place top pilots have comfort to shake off followers and don't need to worry about 20 seconds. In addition because of different skill level US gaggles are not able to grow to the size which we see during Worlds. For some there is shock to see 150 gliders like in Szeged and blame IGC rules for gaggling. Weak and marginal condition will always attract gaggles doesn't matter what kind of rules.
We had gaggles during 2012 US 15M Nationals Mifflin, in addition we had start roulette where we were in sinking thermal before starting 1000 feet lower then possible, under US rules not IGC. For some pilots seeing more then 20 gliders in the thermal there is shock, but in Europe or during Worlds 50 gliders or more is normal as their contests attract 100 or more pilots.
Start line was presented as unsafe in comparison to start cylinder.
US start cylinder is one of the most dangerous places, because before start most pilots are trying to find strong thermal inside cylinder and start trough the top . Worse, we have gaggle flying just under deck with high speed in turn or open air brakes just to stay below start altitude for 2 minutes checking our instruments for altitude and time instead of watching other gliders. This is the most dangerous gaggle in the world and it is under US rules not IGC. US rules are putting more restrictions on the pilots then IGC rules, forcing US pilots to check instruments more often instead looking around especially before start and on the final glide.

Jerzy XG

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Jan 13, 11:32*am, Jerzy > wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 12:22:04 PM UTC-5, Evan Ludeman wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:12:12 AM UTC-5, Tony wrote:
>
> > > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29:20 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > > > More FAI rules silliness:http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg
>
> > > > T8
>
> > > a Rule that creates an incentive for that kind of behavior is pretty silly I think, but I don't see any igc file in the club class mass landout on Day 2 that backs up the story. Perhaps it was a story of what they would've done, or had done at some time in the past.
>
> > I can't find it, either. *With the finish height as low as it is, it's a pretty thin edge, even as edge cases go. *Hmph. *Never trust a yankee to come up with a good story that's true.
>
> > T8
>
> I'm very surprised how IGC rules are *negatively presented to pilots which didn't have opportunity to fly them .
> Claiming that IGC rules are responsible for gaggles and are more dangerous is not correct.
>
> The best of the best are flying in the Worlds.
> *Pilots skill *level is almost the same , performance of the gliders is the same, the only difference is small difference in achieved task speed or distance. The best way to gain is to outsmart opponent and to do that is to start 20 seconds later and finish at the same time or to gain just fraction of altitude or gain extra distance. Because in US contests pilots level is over the place top pilots have comfort to shake off followers and don't need to worry about 20 seconds. In addition *because of different skill level US gaggles are not able to grow to the size which we see during Worlds. For some there is shock to see *150 gliders like in Szeged and blame IGC rules for gaggling. Weak and marginal condition will always attract gaggles doesn't matter what kind of rules.
> *We had gaggles during 2012 US 15M Nationals Mifflin, in addition we had *start roulette where we were in sinking thermal before starting 1000 feet lower then possible, under US rules not IGC. For some pilots seeing more then 20 gliders in the thermal there is shock, but in Europe or during Worlds 50 gliders or more is normal as their contests attract 100 or more pilots.
> Start line was presented as unsafe in comparison to start cylinder.
> US start cylinder is one of the most dangerous places, because before start most pilots are trying to find strong thermal inside cylinder and start trough the top . Worse, we have gaggle flying just under deck with high speed in turn or open air brakes just to stay below start altitude for 2 minutes checking our instruments for altitude and time instead of watching other gliders. This is the most dangerous gaggle in the world and it is *under US rules not IGC. US rules are putting more restrictions on the pilots then IGC rules, forcing US pilots to check instruments more often instead looking around especially before start and on the final glide.
>
> Jerzy XG

Many of Jerzy's points are right but not all. Yes, WGC contests are
bigger. Yes, there are many more really good pilots there. And both
considerations change strategy a lot.

But there are definable places in the IGC rules which give clear
additional incentives to gaggling.

The biggest is the speed/distance and devaluation formulas. Under IGC
rules, if you are the only finisher and the gaggle lands a few miles
short, you get trivial extra points. If you're the only landout and
the gaggle finishes, you get hammered. John Good did an extensive
analysis of this for the US team. Page 6 here has a detailed example

http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/john.cochrane/soaring/docs/future_rules_and_classes.pdf

US rules and devaluation formulas are not perfect by a long shot, but
they do not create quite so strong incentives to sit for an hour and
go land out with the gaggle. The lone wolf who starts first and
finishes when the gaggle plays this game gets a much bigger reward.
Yes we still have gaggles when we call assigned tasks in the blue. But
this is a matter of degree, and the direction is undeniable.

The US start cylinder, with 2 minute rule, ability to start through
the top, and the start height placed well below the top of the lift,
only requires a pilot to monitor altitude for 2 minutes, in abundant
lift. This is a lot better than spending an hour sitting at the very
top of weak thermals or thermal wave with a WGC unlimited altitude
start, gaggles going off inside the clouds, or VNE dives.

It's really not that hard. If the start is 5000', go find a decent
thermal, descend to 4900', sit on the outskirts of the thermal for 1.5
minutes, then rejoin. Climb briefly through the top and head out on
course. Or, better, descend to 4000', scout around for a great core
and blast through the top at 6 knots.

John Cochrane

[Juanman[_2_]]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 5:02:29 PM UTC-5, Fox Sierra wrote:
> BB,
>
>
>
> Your keen insights as a professor of risk and volatility are needed here! How is it possible that so many gliders land within a few kilometers of the finish with a standard deviation of achieved distances of only a few kilometers!?!?!? Assuming there was not a wall of rain blocking the landing zone, wouldn't a few gliders be expected to have the extra 100 meters of altitude required??
>
> FS

The day was blue with high winds. Waiting is not just for the gaggle but also for thermals to get stronger. Later in the day in Chaves other factors weigh in, like the sea breeze that comes from the Atlantic. So in the end the day just died and pilots landed out. This has happened most of the time last week.

The organizers are frustrated by this very unusual weather pattern, supposedly provoked by the El Niño currents in the Pacific. Hopefully conditions will change this week for some real racing, not just survival.

Some of the tasks may have been set too long based on optimistic forecasts that didn't bear out.

Despite everything the top pilots are at the top... They're just damn good!

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

>
> Despite everything the top pilots are at the top... *They're just damn good!

Yes, but part of what makes them "top" is mastering the tactical games
induced by IGC rules. That's true for every contest BTW; you have to
understand US rules to do well at US contests.

John Cochrane

[Mike C]

"Yes, but part of what makes them "top" is mastering the tactical games
induced by IGC rules."

Yes and is the very reason we have to have real Club Class rules and experience here, IF we want to properly prepare pilots for International Competition.

Mike

On Monday, January 14, 2013 8:46:59 AM UTC-7, John Cochrane wrote:
> >
>
> > Despite everything the top pilots are at the top... *They're just damn good!
>
>
>
> Yes, but part of what makes them "top" is mastering the tactical games
>
> induced by IGC rules. That's true for every contest BTW; you have to
>
> understand US rules to do well at US contests.
>
>
>
> John Cochrane

[Sean F (F2)]

Excellent post Jerzy.

Reading some of the Worlds blog posts (and definitely many RAS posts) its as if a propaganda campaign demonizing IGC rules is underway in the US. This is in apparent response to the group of US club class owners and contest pilots asking for an SSA SANCTIONED US club class for years. What was offered after years of begging is a massively morphed barely recognizable "in name only "US club class."

In my opinion (At the US nationals) the successful sports class should remain unchanged, the club class should closely resemble IGC Club Class and pilots of club level gliders SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION to fly Sports or Club.

Club Nationals IS INTENDED to qualify a US pilot for the FAI CLUB CLASS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS after all.

Everyone has a choice, nobody is left behind.

Simple! Clean and very little risk of dissatisfaction...

55 pilots have signed the WE WANT FAI / IGC RULES SSA SANCTIONED US CLUB CLASS PETITION. Major names, etc, etc.

Sean
F2

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 1:04:43 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
> Excellent post Jerzy.
>
>
>
> Reading some of the Worlds blog posts (and definitely many RAS posts) its as if a propaganda campaign demonizing IGC rules is underway in the US. This is in apparent response to the group of US club class owners and contest pilots asking for an SSA SANCTIONED US club class for years. What was offered after years of begging is a massively morphed barely recognizable "in name only "US club class."
>
>
>
> In my opinion (At the US nationals) the successful sports class should remain unchanged, the club class should closely resemble IGC Club Class and pilots of club level gliders SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION to fly Sports or Club.
>
>
>
> Club Nationals IS INTENDED to qualify a US pilot for the FAI CLUB CLASS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS after all.
>
>
>
> Everyone has a choice, nobody is left behind.
>
>
>
> Simple! Clean and very little risk of dissatisfaction...
>
>
>
> 55 pilots have signed the WE WANT FAI / IGC RULES SSA SANCTIONED US CLUB CLASS PETITION. Major names, etc, etc.
>
>
>
> Sean
>
> F2

Regarding propaganda campaigns: not having a horse in this race, I see valid reasoning on both sides and very little flaming although the protagonists appear to be quite opinionated. If someone would put a gun to my head and force me to choose I'd go Sports Class. Any set of rules that allows for 3km finals in near ground effect, jumping roads, risking to hit photographers standing on their cars, having to make 180 turns near the ground, low energy landings in general and the like are too much excitement for me. I'd have no qualms about IGC Rule fans holding their own contests but participation will be low IMHO.

[[email protected]]

On Monday, January 14, 2013 3:35:44 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2013 1:04:43 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > Excellent post Jerzy.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Reading some of the Worlds blog posts (and definitely many RAS posts) its as if a propaganda campaign demonizing IGC rules is underway in the US. This is in apparent response to the group of US club class owners and contest pilots asking for an SSA SANCTIONED US club class for years. What was offered after years of begging is a massively morphed barely recognizable "in name only "US club class."
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > In my opinion (At the US nationals) the successful sports class should remain unchanged, the club class should closely resemble IGC Club Class and pilots of club level gliders SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION to fly Sports or Club.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Club Nationals IS INTENDED to qualify a US pilot for the FAI CLUB CLASS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS after all.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Everyone has a choice, nobody is left behind.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Simple! Clean and very little risk of dissatisfaction...
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > 55 pilots have signed the WE WANT FAI / IGC RULES SSA SANCTIONED US CLUB CLASS PETITION. Major names, etc, etc.
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > Sean
>
> >
>
> > F2
>
>
>
> Regarding propaganda campaigns: not having a horse in this race, I see valid reasoning on both sides and very little flaming although the protagonists appear to be quite opinionated. If someone would put a gun to my head and force me to choose I'd go Sports Class. Any set of rules that allows for 3km finals in near ground effect, jumping roads, risking to hit photographers standing on their cars, having to make 180 turns near the ground, low energy landings in general and the like are too much excitement for me. I'd have no qualms about IGC Rule fans holding their own contests but participation will be low IMHO.

I see the propagandist have succeeded again! FAI rules allow for finish altitudes of 5000 feet AGL or more if contest management sees fit. We can all agree this is exagerated but the point is that contest management is responsible for a safe contest. Just like in the US.

Sean Franke

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Jan 14, 5:57*pm, wrote:
> On Monday, January 14, 2013 3:35:44 PM UTC-8, wrote:
> > On Monday, January 14, 2013 1:04:43 PM UTC-6, Sean F (F2) wrote:
>
> > > Excellent post Jerzy.
>
> > > Reading some of the Worlds blog posts (and definitely many RAS posts) its as if a propaganda campaign demonizing IGC rules is underway in the US.. *This is in apparent response to the group of US club class owners and contest pilots asking for an SSA SANCTIONED US club class for years. *What was offered after years of begging is a massively morphed barely recognizable "in name only "US club class."
>
> > > In my opinion (At the US nationals) the successful sports class should remain unchanged, the club class should closely resemble IGC Club Class and pilots of club level gliders SHOULD HAVE THE OPTION to fly Sports or Club.
>
> > > Club Nationals IS INTENDED to qualify a US pilot for the FAI CLUB CLASS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIPS after all.
>
> > > Everyone has a choice, nobody is left behind.
>
> > > Simple! *Clean and very little risk of dissatisfaction...
>
> > > 55 pilots have signed the WE WANT FAI / IGC RULES SSA SANCTIONED US *CLUB CLASS PETITION. *Major names, etc, etc.
>
> > > Sean
>
> > > F2
>
> > Regarding propaganda campaigns: not having a horse in this race, I see valid reasoning on both sides and very little flaming although the protagonists appear to be quite opinionated. *If someone would put a gun to my head and force me to choose I'd go Sports Class. *Any set of rules that allows for 3km finals in near ground effect, jumping roads, risking to hit photographers standing on their cars, having to make 180 turns near the ground, low energy landings in general and the like are too much excitement for me. *I'd have no qualms about IGC Rule fans holding their own contests but participation will be low IMHO.
>
> I see the propagandist have succeeded again! FAI rules allow for finish altitudes of 5000 feet AGL or more if contest management sees fit. We can all agree this is exagerated but the point is that contest management is responsible for a safe contest. *Just like in the US.
>
> Sean Franke

Please, please, please let's not start up the whole "we must have pure
club class with IGC rules at Mifflin in May" all over again. We've
beat it to death. Not happening. The organizers and scorers don't want
to do it, and we don't do huge rules changes for nationals at the last
moment.

If you want this to happen, running a regional under IGC rules would
be an excellent way to show that pilots desire this format and you
know enough about the rules to make it work. Then we'll revisit the
whole business in the fall.

Last time, when we ran the pilot opinion poll, a huge majority said
they liked the structure of Mifflin, and zero -- zero -- comments said
"we must have pure club class and IGC rules." Give us a hint, during
the regular rules change season, ok? We will obviously poll the use of
IGC rules in November.

John Cochrane

[[email protected]]

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:42:12 PM UTC+10:30, Tony wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29:20 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > More FAI rules silliness: http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > T8
>
>
>
> a Rule that creates an incentive for that kind of behavior is pretty silly I think, but I don't see any igc file in the club class mass landout on Day 2 that backs up the story. Perhaps it was a story of what they would've done, or had done at some time in the past.

Disappointing no one seems to actually read the rules these days.
Not only is there no evidence this actually happened, the penalty is 1pt/metre below finish height *NOT EXCEEDING ACHIEVED SPEED POINTS*. Of which you get none for an outlanding, so no harm in finishing below height if it's not possible otherwise. (Sporting Code 3, Annex A, 8.7 "Incorrect Finish")

[John Cochrane[_3_]]

On Jan 15, 5:54*am, wrote:
> On Thursday, January 10, 2013 11:42:12 PM UTC+10:30, Tony wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 10, 2013 6:29:20 AM UTC-6, Evan Ludeman wrote:
>
> > > More FAI rules silliness:http://tinyurl.com/aasl8mg
>
> > > T8
>
> > a Rule that creates an incentive for that kind of behavior is pretty silly I think, but I don't see any igc file in the club class mass landout on Day 2 that backs up the story. Perhaps it was a story of what they would've done, or had done at some time in the past.
>
> Disappointing no one seems to actually read the rules these days.
> Not only is there no evidence this actually happened, the penalty is 1pt/metre below finish height *NOT EXCEEDING ACHIEVED SPEED POINTS*. Of which you get none for an outlanding, so no harm in finishing below height if it's not possible otherwise. (Sporting Code 3, Annex A, 8.7 "Incorrect Finish")

I recall Rick's post calling it an "unsafe flying" penalty, not a "low
finish" penalty, but I'm not sure.
A lot for a pilot to keep straight finishing a long final glide at
53.00 knots and 20 meters above a busy road.

John Cochrane

[cernauta]

On Tue, 15 Jan 2013 03:54:57 -0800 (PST),
wrote:

>Disappointing no one seems to actually read the rules these days.
>Not only is there no evidence this actually happened, the penalty is 1pt/metre below finish height *NOT EXCEEDING ACHIEVED SPEED POINTS*. Of which you get none for an outlanding, so no harm in finishing below height if it's not possible otherwise. (Sporting Code 3, Annex A, 8.7 "Incorrect Finish")

The devil is in the details.
I've been told that the penalty, in Gonzales Chaves, would be issued
for dangerous flying at low altitude, as a low finish crosses a road.
The intention seems to be to prevent dangerous situations with
possible glider-car/truck collisions.

So it seems that the penalty might in this case well exceed the speed
points for the completed task.

I have no opinions about it, just an observation.
Safety first, anyway.

aldo cernezzi
www.voloavela.it

[[email protected]]

On Wednesday, January 9, 2013 4:48:27 AM UTC-8, Papa3 wrote:
> Can someone explain this one to me:
>
>
>
> http://www.soaringspot.net/wgc2012/results/club/daily/day2.html


Unsafe flying penalty is issued flying over the road less than 15 meters. The option available is to land in a good field before the road. There are a significant number of fields larger and as good as the airfield in the contest area.

Sean Franke

[[email protected]]

The post refers to the 'finish penalty'...
"Instead of making a finish, he made a single circle, landed outside the Ring, and carefully rolled to within 100 meters of it. Instead of being the only finisher that day, he opted to be the closest landout. By doing this he avoided the finish penalty and maximized his score."
Regardless, why not land one paddock inside the circle then and be sure to have the most distance points?