Any news from IGC?

[PapaIndia]

Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, PapaIndia
> writes

>Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?

The new IGC bureau (Executive Committee) is already on the IGC web
pages:

President: Robert G. HENDERSON (New Zealand)

1st Vice-President Eric MOZER (USA)

Vice-Presidents

Richard (Dick) BRADLEY (South Africa)
Vladimir FOLTIN (Slovak Republic)
Axel REICH (Germany)
Brian SPRECKLEY (UK)
Roland STUCK (France)

Secretary: Peter ERIKSEN (Denmark)

-------------------

Sporting Code

A resolution to ban night flying for gliding record flights was
defeated. The present rule remains that says that night flying is OK as
part of IGC flight performances as long as the law of the land for night
flying is followed.

A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for free flights as
well as pre-declared, was defeated.

A proposal to withdraw the World Class from 2007 as an official IGC
class was defeated. However, it was also pointed out that it was
essential that enough entries were put forward for future World
Championships for the World Class (PW-5 single design class),
particularly after the event scheduled in New Zealand has to be
cancelled due to lack of entries.

Notice was given that the use of cameras for turn point validation might
disappear sometime in the future. No definite date was put forward but
the intention was to warn pilots in good time that at some future date,
GPS recording might be the only validation system within IGC. Comments
and discussion were invited.

-------------------

Awards

The Lilienthal Medal went to Prof Piero Morelli (Italy), a long-term
member of the OSTIV Sailplane Development Panel.

The Pirat Gehrigher Diploma was awarded to Prof Peter Ryder (Germany, ex
IGC President) and Tapio Savolainen (Finland).

-------------------

GPS matters

Proposals from Austria, Canada and Sweden were either defeated or
withdrawn after discussion. Austria wanted the GR1000 recorder kept at
World Record level, Sweden wanted changes in recorder level to be only
decided by the Plenary rather than by GFAC and the Bureau, and Canada
wanted Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) recorders allowed for IGC flight
performances as well as the current IGC-approved ones.

Some amendments to Annex B to the Sporting Code were agreed as a result
of experiences in 2003 (wording is in the published agenda). A Bureau
draft on the implementation of changes of level for older recorders was
accepted in principle and the detailed wording is being finalised by the
Bureau at this time. These amendments will be published well before the
implementation date which as usual for the Gliding Sporting Code, is 1
October.

-------------------

Much more detail will be in the published minutes which are being drawn
up at this moment.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

[ken ward]

In article >,
Ian Strachan > wrote:

>
> GPS matters
>
> Proposals from Austria, Canada and Sweden were either defeated or
> withdrawn after discussion. <snip> Canada
> wanted Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) recorders allowed for IGC flight
> performances as well as the current IGC-approved ones.
>

I've heard that CIVL approved COTS GPS for world record claims at their
Plenary. Until now CIVL has said that they would accept anything that
the IGC would accept. Would the FAI really give IGC GNSS based claims
for 'soaring' records the same status as CIVL COTS GPS based claims?

What does the IGC know about COTS GPS that CIVL and the Canadians don't?

Ken

[Robert Danewid]

Ian

Our proposal re recorder said

"There shall be evidence that flight records generated from a recorder
of the type in question have actually been manipulated or falsified for
a record claim. This evidence shall be presented to the IGC Meeting who
will decide if the recorder shall be downgraded or not."

Our delegates report that our proposal was not defeated. On the
contrary, they say that it was decided that in the future GFAC shall
suggest changes on recorder level to the Plenary meeting and then
Plenary meeting decides.

I am really looking forward to read the minutes!

Furthermore, the decision to fly two Worlds every even year, one in 15m,
18m and open and the other in standard, club and world class was a real
bad decision. I am convinced that in the future this will result in only
the richest countries can afford to send pilots to WGC. I think that in
the future we will see a lot of German World Champions!

Unfortunately international competition flying is going one way and the
rest of gliding (99%) is going in another direction. It is pity because
gliding as a sport would benefit from a strong competition scene
alongside the club flying.

Robert

Ian Strachan wrote:
> In article >, PapaIndia
> > writes
>
>> Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?
>
>
> The new IGC bureau (Executive Committee) is already on the IGC web pages:
>
> President: Robert G. HENDERSON (New Zealand)
>
> 1st Vice-President Eric MOZER (USA)
>
> Vice-Presidents
>
> Richard (Dick) BRADLEY (South Africa)
> Vladimir FOLTIN (Slovak Republic)
> Axel REICH (Germany)
> Brian SPRECKLEY (UK)
> Roland STUCK (France)
>
> Secretary: Peter ERIKSEN (Denmark)
>
> -------------------
>
> Sporting Code
>
> A resolution to ban night flying for gliding record flights was
> defeated. The present rule remains that says that night flying is OK as
> part of IGC flight performances as long as the law of the land for night
> flying is followed.
>
> A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for free flights as
> well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>
> A proposal to withdraw the World Class from 2007 as an official IGC
> class was defeated. However, it was also pointed out that it was
> essential that enough entries were put forward for future World
> Championships for the World Class (PW-5 single design class),
> particularly after the event scheduled in New Zealand has to be
> cancelled due to lack of entries.
>
> Notice was given that the use of cameras for turn point validation might
> disappear sometime in the future. No definite date was put forward but
> the intention was to warn pilots in good time that at some future date,
> GPS recording might be the only validation system within IGC. Comments
> and discussion were invited.
>
> -------------------
>
> Awards
>
> The Lilienthal Medal went to Prof Piero Morelli (Italy), a long-term
> member of the OSTIV Sailplane Development Panel.
>
> The Pirat Gehrigher Diploma was awarded to Prof Peter Ryder (Germany, ex
> IGC President) and Tapio Savolainen (Finland).
>
> -------------------
>
> GPS matters
>
> Proposals from Austria, Canada and Sweden were either defeated or
> withdrawn after discussion. Austria wanted the GR1000 recorder kept at
> World Record level, Sweden wanted changes in recorder level to be only
> decided by the Plenary rather than by GFAC and the Bureau, and Canada
> wanted Commercial Off the Shelf (COTS) recorders allowed for IGC flight
> performances as well as the current IGC-approved ones.
>
> Some amendments to Annex B to the Sporting Code were agreed as a result
> of experiences in 2003 (wording is in the published agenda). A Bureau
> draft on the implementation of changes of level for older recorders was
> accepted in principle and the detailed wording is being finalised by the
> Bureau at this time. These amendments will be published well before the
> implementation date which as usual for the Gliding Sporting Code, is 1
> October.
>
> -------------------
>
> Much more detail will be in the published minutes which are being drawn
> up at this moment.
>

[Ian Strachan]

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.

--
Ian Strachan
Chairman IGC GFA Committee

[Don Johnstone]

At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:

>snip-
>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
>free flights as
>well as pre-declared, was defeated.

Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
being discriminated against.
The award of badges should be made on performance,
not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
logger.

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Don Johnstone
> writes
>At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>
>>snip-
>>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
>>free flights as
>>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>
>Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
>logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
>by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
>badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
>facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
>Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
>badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
>is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
>problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
>being discriminated against.
>The award of badges should be made on performance,
>not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
>logger.
>
Check your facts Don, declarations made after take-off are invalid.

Sporting Code section 3:

4.2.2 Declaration validity
a. The last declaration made before takeoff is the only one valid for
the flight, but a concurrently flown and different competition task is
allowed.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Don Johnstone]

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

At 11:48 05 March 2004, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>X-no-archive: yes
>In article , Don Johnstone
> writes
>>At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>>
>>>snip-
>>>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
>>>free flights as
>>>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>>
>>Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
>>logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
>>by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
>>badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
>>facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
>>Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
>>badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
>>is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
>>problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
>>being discriminated against.
>>The award of badges should be made on performance,
>>not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
>>logger.
>>
>Check your facts Don, declarations made after take-off
>are invalid.
>
>Sporting Code section 3:
>
>4.2.2 Declaration validity
>a. The last declaration made before takeoff is the
>only one valid for
>the flight, but a concurrently flown and different
>competition task is
>allowed.
>
>Tim Newport-Peace
>
>'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'
>

[tango4]

I think that there is quite a difference between flying a declared task and
a free distance one. Declarations imply some degree of weather interpreting
, task area selection and planning. Free distance - get under a stonking
street and keep going! The difference is subtle but its there!

Not sure if this is pertinent but free distance tasks are not acceptable for
badge flights

Ian



"Don Johnstone" > wrote in
message ...
> 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
>
> At 11:48 05 March 2004, Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
> >X-no-archive: yes
> >In article , Don Johnstone
> > writes
> >>At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
> >>
> >>>snip-
> >>>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
> >>>free flights as
> >>>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
> >>
> >>Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
> >>logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
> >>by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
> >>badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
> >>facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
> >>Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
> >>badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
> >>is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
> >>problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
> >>being discriminated against.
> >>The award of badges should be made on performance,
> >>not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
> >>logger.
> >>
> >Check your facts Don, declarations made after take-off
> >are invalid.
> >
> >Sporting Code section 3:
> >
> >4.2.2 Declaration validity
> >a. The last declaration made before takeoff is the
> >only one valid for
> >the flight, but a concurrently flown and different
> >competition task is
> >allowed.
> >
> >Tim Newport-Peace
> >
> >'Indecision is the Key to Flexibility.'
> >
>
>
>

[d b]

Not on my Colibri, you can't. It stops the flight, starts another. Hard to
prove a takeoff when there isn't any.

In article >, Don Johnstone
> wrote:
>At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>
>>snip-
>>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
>>free flights as
>>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>
>Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
>logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
>by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
>badge flight. Those without a logger which has this
>facility cannot do this, they are at a disadvantage.
>Surely we should have a level palying field. Awarding
>badges on the distance flown where an approved logger
>is used, whether declared or not, would solve this
>problem. Those who cannot afford expensive kit are
>being discriminated against.
>The award of badges should be made on performance,
>not the ability of the pilot to purchase an expensive
>logger.
>
>
>

[Eric Greenwell]

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
>
It's not a matter of technology, but philosophy. Cameras or GPS
recorder, you can still make a witnessed takeoff and fly an undeclared
flight. The declared flight definitely predates cameras! I don't know
the history well, but certainly it is a more difficult task to achieve,
and this gives it more value to many of us. Lately, undeclared tasks
have been added, at least for records, so perhaps the philosophy is
changing.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Martin Gregorie]

On 5 Mar 2004 11:12:19 GMT, Don Johnstone
> wrote:

>At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>
>>snip-
>>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
>>free flights as
>>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>
Quite right too.

Free flights should not count for badges because an important part of
the badge requirement is to pre-plan a flight that can be done in the
prevailing weather conditions. That's why (in the UK at least)
suitable competition tasks cannot be used to claim badge flights: you
haven't planned the task, only flown it.

>Which is hard to understand. Anyone with a programmable
>logger can get airbourne and then declare a flight
>by entering the details in the logger, and claim a
>badge flight.
>
As others have pointed out, this is plain wrong.


--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[F.L. Whiteley]

"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
> On 5 Mar 2004 11:12:19 GMT, Don Johnstone
> > wrote:
>
> >At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
> >
> >>snip-
> >>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
> >>free flights as
> >>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
> >
> Quite right too.
>
> Free flights should not count for badges because an important part of
> the badge requirement is to pre-plan a flight that can be done in the
> prevailing weather conditions. That's why (in the UK at least)
> suitable competition tasks cannot be used to claim badge flights: you
> haven't planned the task, only flown it.
>
Way this always a rule? I know of one UK competition where 25 Diamond
distance flights were completed. Perhaps only a goal leg is not
claimable, but may distance, altitude, and duration are?

Frank Whiteley

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, F.L. Whiteley
> writes
>
>"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
>> On 5 Mar 2004 11:12:19 GMT, Don Johnstone
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>> >
>> >>snip-
>> >>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
>> >>free flights as
>> >>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>> >
>> Quite right too.
>>
>> Free flights should not count for badges because an important part of
>> the badge requirement is to pre-plan a flight that can be done in the
>> prevailing weather conditions. That's why (in the UK at least)
>> suitable competition tasks cannot be used to claim badge flights: you
>> haven't planned the task, only flown it.
>>
>Way this always a rule? I know of one UK competition where 25 Diamond
>distance flights were completed. Perhaps only a goal leg is not
>claimable, but may distance, altitude, and duration are?
>
>Frank Whiteley
>
>
>
>
If the task set is a qualifying badge task, it is taken as read that by
taking part in the competition that day a declaration has been made and
no separate declaration is required.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Martin Gregorie]

On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:12:51 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:

>
>"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
>> On 5 Mar 2004 11:12:19 GMT, Don Johnstone
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>> >
>> >>snip-
>> >>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
>> >>free flights as
>> >>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>> >
>> Quite right too.
>>
>> Free flights should not count for badges because an important part of
>> the badge requirement is to pre-plan a flight that can be done in the
>> prevailing weather conditions. That's why (in the UK at least)
>> suitable competition tasks cannot be used to claim badge flights: you
>> haven't planned the task, only flown it.
>>
>Way this always a rule? I know of one UK competition where 25 Diamond
>distance flights were completed. Perhaps only a goal leg is not
>claimable, but may distance, altitude, and duration are?
>
In my previous post I repeated what I was told when last year I asked
if a 300 km Regionals task could be claimed as Gold distance. The
explanation I repeated as to why it couldn't was given to me at the
time.

Now I've just skim read the FAI OO guide and it mentions no such
limitation, so on the face of it I can't see why a competition task
shouldn't be claimed as a badge flight.

However, I'd also say that the logistics of making a properly
witnessed claim during the task could be quite a problem. You'd have
to get your declaration made between briefing and launching the grid,
find an OO to supervise removing the logger after you land and then
sort out any conflicts between the OO and the task scorer regarding
logger custody and downloading - and do all this in the general
turmoil of a competition day without annoying the folks in competition
control.

--
martin@ : Martin Gregorie
gregorie : Harlow, UK
demon :
co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
uk :

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Martin Gregorie
> writes
>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:12:51 -0700, "F.L. Whiteley"
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Martin Gregorie" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 5 Mar 2004 11:12:19 GMT, Don Johnstone
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>> >At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>snip-
>>> >>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed for
>>> >>free flights as
>>> >>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>>> >
>>> Quite right too.
>>>
>>> Free flights should not count for badges because an important part of
>>> the badge requirement is to pre-plan a flight that can be done in the
>>> prevailing weather conditions. That's why (in the UK at least)
>>> suitable competition tasks cannot be used to claim badge flights: you
>>> haven't planned the task, only flown it.
>>>
>>Way this always a rule? I know of one UK competition where 25 Diamond
>>distance flights were completed. Perhaps only a goal leg is not
>>claimable, but may distance, altitude, and duration are?
>>
>In my previous post I repeated what I was told when last year I asked
>if a 300 km Regionals task could be claimed as Gold distance. The
>explanation I repeated as to why it couldn't was given to me at the
>time.
>
>Now I've just skim read the FAI OO guide and it mentions no such
>limitation, so on the face of it I can't see why a competition task
>shouldn't be claimed as a badge flight.
>
>However, I'd also say that the logistics of making a properly
>witnessed claim during the task could be quite a problem. You'd have
>to get your declaration made between briefing and launching the grid,

I don't see that. I have always taken the view that by virtue of taking
part in the competition that day, you have declared the task as set by
the organisers. That's common sense, isn't it?

>find an OO to supervise removing the logger after you land and then
>sort out any conflicts between the OO and the task scorer regarding
>logger custody and downloading - and do all this in the general
>turmoil of a competition day without annoying the folks in competition
>control.

Having an OO remove the Flight Recorder from the Aircraft is only
necessary IF the approval document for that Flight Recorder requires it.

Certainly, under Lasham's Local rules and maybe other clubs, Competition
Officials are Officials Observers for the Duration of the Contest.

It is however important to remember that the 'observation' zones for
Competitions and Badges are slightly different, and if you intend to
claim a badge you need to go a bit further into the zone.

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Don Johnstone]

As Tim has already noted, the publication of a competition
task counts as a declaration. The only proviso to this
is that the turning points have to be rounded, you
need to enter the defined sector, going into the TP
beer barrel is not enuff. When setting tasks which
qualify as badge flights I always stress this point
so that those who wish to claim a badge go that little
bit further. It is the failure to go into the TP sector
which is probably the reason some claims are rejected,
not that there is a rule against it.

As regards free distance flights not counting as badge
flights, consider the silver distance flight.

At 22:30 06 March 2004, Martin Gregorie wrote:
>On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 14:12:51 -0700, 'F.L. Whiteley'
> wrote:
>
>>
>>'Martin Gregorie' wrote in message
...
>>> On 5 Mar 2004 11:12:19 GMT, Don Johnstone
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> >At 17:06 04 March 2004, Ian Strachan wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>snip-
>>> >>A proposal that badge distances should be allowed
>>>>>for
>>> >>free flights as
>>> >>well as pre-declared, was defeated.
>>> >
>>> Quite right too.
>>>
>>> Free flights should not count for badges because an
>>>important part of
>>> the badge requirement is to pre-plan a flight that
>>>can be done in the
>>> prevailing weather conditions. That's why (in the
>>>UK at least)
>>> suitable competition tasks cannot be used to claim
>>>badge flights: you
>>> haven't planned the task, only flown it.
>>>
>>Way this always a rule? I know of one UK competition
>>where 25 Diamond
>>distance flights were completed. Perhaps only a goal
>>leg is not
>>claimable, but may distance, altitude, and duration
>>are?
>>
>In my previous post I repeated what I was told when
>last year I asked
>if a 300 km Regionals task could be claimed as Gold
>distance. The
>explanation I repeated as to why it couldn't was given
>to me at the
>time.
>
>Now I've just skim read the FAI OO guide and it mentions
>no such
>limitation, so on the face of it I can't see why a
>competition task
>shouldn't be claimed as a badge flight.
>
>However, I'd also say that the logistics of making
>a properly
>witnessed claim during the task could be quite a problem.
>You'd have
>to get your declaration made between briefing and launching
>the grid,
>find an OO to supervise removing the logger after you
>land and then
>sort out any conflicts between the OO and the task
>scorer regarding
>logger custody and downloading - and do all this in
>the general
>turmoil of a competition day without annoying the folks
>in competition
>control.
>
>--
>martin@ : Martin Gregorie
>gregorie : Harlow, UK
>demon :
>co : Zappa fan & glider pilot
>uk :
>
>

[Mark James Boyd]

Why not simply write down the turnpoint coordinates, off
by one in the "seconds," and get that signed as a declaration?
Then it isn't the competition task, but one flown concurrently.
And obviously it requires different planning, right (since
it IS a different course)?

Reducio ad absurdum...
--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

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 Boyd
Avenal, California, USA

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article <404cf98a$1@darkstar>, Mark James Boyd >
writes
>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.
>
For badges a maximum of 3 waypoints may be claimed and each Waypoint may
only be claimed once. (SC3, 1.4.5(b). The sequence must be on the
declaration.


Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Janos Bauer]

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...

[Kirk Stant]

(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

[Robert Danewid]

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.
>

[Mark James Boyd]

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

[Kirk Stant]

(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

[Janos Bauer]

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

[Ian Strachan]

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

[Eric Greenwell]

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

[Tony Verhulst]

> 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

[Bill Daniels]

"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

[Kirk Stant]

Tony Verhulst > 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;
>
> 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


That is the advantage of flying in AZ, we usually don't go anywhere
near the airports that the Prez will visit. When he is in the area,
the word gets out and TFR locations are checked, of course.

Good point about checking for airfield status - haven't had that
problem out here, though. Paved airports are far apart, lots of dirt
strips

Might be a nice addition to our club website - a "local airport
status" listing.

But does anyone file flight plans out there? I've never seen an NTSB
glider accident report that said the glider was on a flight plan - not
that that means much (small sample size).

Kirk

[Denis]

tango4 wrote:
> Not sure if this is pertinent but free distance tasks are not acceptable for
> badge flights

Yes they are ! Either free distance in straight line or free distance
with up to 3 (predeclared) turn points

--
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]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> For badges a maximum of 3 waypoints may be claimed and each Waypoint may
> only be claimed once. (SC3, 1.4.5(b).

Yes

> The sequence must be on the declaration.

No ! The course must be declared, but
"The TURN POINTS( ...) may be claimed once, *in any sequence* "
(SC3, 1.4.5(b) also)



--
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]

PapaIndia wrote:

> Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?

http://www.fai.org/gliding/meetings/2004/keydecisionsfrom2004.pdf

--
Denis

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Denis > wrote:
>tango4 wrote:
>> Not sure if this is pertinent but free distance tasks are not acceptable for
>> badge flights
>
>Yes they are ! Either free distance in straight line or free distance
>with up to 3 (predeclared) turn points

I have to point out a confusion that I had as well about
definitions.

A "free 3TP" task means the 3 turnpoints are declared
before the flight, but the order of the turnpoints, and
whether 1,2,or all 3 turnpoints are claimed
is declared after the flight. I haven't seen this clearly explained
anywhere but on some of the declaration forms themselves.

This is different from what I would conceptually
consider "free," which is when three turnpoins would
be chosen after the flight from the three points on the gps trace
which are furthest apart.

Anyone with more comment on this please correct me if
this is mistaken...I've only flown one free 3TP record,
and the "free 3TP" task and form were what I used.


--

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

[Denis]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> It is however important to remember that the 'observation' zones for
> Competitions and Badges are slightly different, and if you intend to
> claim a badge you need to go a bit further into the zone.

At least until 1st Oct 2004, where beer can will be included in the OZ
even for badges or records


--
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]

Janos Bauer wrote:

> Theoretically you don't have to go further than 125km from your home on
> a 500km task.

it's actually 83.333 km only !


--
Denis

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

[Tim Newport-Peace]

X-no-archive: yes
In article >, Denis <moncourrielest
> writes
>Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>
>> For badges a maximum of 3 waypoints may be claimed and each Waypoint may
>> only be claimed once. (SC3, 1.4.5(b).
>
>Yes
>
>> The sequence must be on the declaration.
>
>No ! The course must be declared, but
>"The TURN POINTS( ...) may be claimed once, *in any sequence* "
>(SC3, 1.4.5(b) also)
>
>
>
>--
>Denis


Hi Denis,

But what about:

4.2.1 Declaration content
--------snip
e. Way points and the sequence to be flown, start, turn(s), finish/goal
as applicable to the specific soaring performance *

Tim Newport-Peace

"Indecision is the Key to Flexibility."

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Denis > wrote:
>Janos Bauer wrote:
>
>> Theoretically you don't have to go further than 125km from your home on
>> a 500km task.
>
>it's actually 83.333 km only !

Hmmm...if S is start, F is finish, points are 1, 2, 3, and A
is the airport:

S 1

2 A 3

F

Then S-1 = 1-2 = 2-3 = 3-F = 125km
Since half of that is the max distance to the airport, 62.5 km
is max distance (about 33NM).

For gold distance of 300km, this is 37.5km (20NM).

Astonishingly,
for silver distance, one can fly a 3TP course without ever going
more than 6.25km (3.3 NM) from the airport! Get towed out to
near the start, and just fly back and forth over the airport
four times!

I'm not saying it's easier than just grabbing a thermal to
6000ft and then doing a 50km downwind dash :(), but it sounds
pretty darned easy...geez, at 3.3 NM from the airport,
1000ft AGL is final glide even for a 2-33 :O

Of course assume half glide, and add pattern, blah blah,
but even that's just 3000 ft. Not exactly a challenge...



--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Denis > wrote:
>Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>
>> It is however important to remember that the 'observation' zones for
>> Competitions and Badges are slightly different, and if you intend to
>> claim a badge you need to go a bit further into the zone.
>
>At least until 1st Oct 2004, where beer can will be included in the OZ
>even for badges or records

I assume that like competitions, distance will be calculated by
the furthest point into the beer can...right?

Do you have a reference for this? How big is the beer can?

--

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

[tango4]

50 km silver - the 50 km has to be one leg in a straight stripe - read
2.1.1.a . You're going to have to get 25 km from the airfield.

Ian

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
tango4 > wrote:
>50 km silver - the 50 km has to be one leg in a straight stripe - read
>2.1.1.a . You're going to have to get 25 km from the airfield.
>
>Ian

Darn good thing SOMEBODY is willing to look at the regs.

Thanks Ian! I thought that 3.3nm from the airport was a little
absurd...
--

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

[Janos Bauer]

Oh yes, you right! I will try it this summer:)

Denis wrote:
>
> Janos Bauer wrote:
>
> > Theoretically you don't have to go further than 125km from your home on
> > a 500km task.
>
> it's actually 83.333 km only !

[Don Johnstone]

No. For competitions the distance is calculated to
each nominated turning point and as far as the competiton
is concerned is the set distance. A competitor entering
the beer can is deemed to have reached the turning
point and turned it. To claim a badge you have to enter
the observation sector of the declared turning point,
which is a different animal altogether. I suppose if
you wanted to you could declare seperately a point
nearest to the last TP on the target beer can but you
would still have to enter the observation zone for
this new TP. The distance for the badge claim would
be the distance between the new offset TPs and for
the comp it would still be the original set TPs.

At 02:42 12 March 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:
>In article ,
>Denis wrote:
>>Tim Newport-Peace wrote:
>>
>>> It is however important to remember that the 'observation'
>>>zones for
>>> Competitions and Badges are slightly different, and
>>>if you intend to
>>> claim a badge you need to go a bit further into the
>>>zone.
>>
>>At least until 1st Oct 2004, where beer can will be
>>included in the OZ
>>even for badges or records
>
>I assume that like competitions, distance will be calculated
>by
>the furthest point into the beer can...right?
>
>Do you have a reference for this? How big is the beer
>can?
>
>--
>
>------------+
>Mark Boyd
>Avenal, California, USA
>

[Ian Johnston]

On Wed, 10 Mar 2004 11:24:49 UTC, Ian Strachan >
wrote:

: 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.

Thank goodness gliding is a hobby, eh? I'd hate to see it tied up with
lots of committees like the rest of aviation.

Ian


--

[Denis]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

>>At least until 1st Oct 2004, where beer can will be included in the OZ
>>even for badges or records
>
>
> I assume that like competitions, distance will be calculated by
> the furthest point into the beer can...right?

I don't know which competitions you are speaking about, nor their
particular rules. I am refeering to SC3 annex A, where the distance is
calculated by the turn point itself, center of the beer can.

> Do you have a reference for this? How big is the beer can?

Look at the agenda of 2004 IGC meeting on www.fai.org/gliding site (I
don't know if the proposal has been approved by the plenary, but it is
likely because it was a year 2 proposal) .

The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.

Unfortunately there is now two ways of declaring a turn point : with
usual observation zone (90° quadrant) *or* with target zone (beer can).
And I don't know how this can be done in any electronic delaration ! Not
speaking from the mess in analysis softwares with several possible task
distances from the same turn points !

--
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]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> I have to point out a confusion that I had as well about
> definitions.
>
> A "free 3TP" task means the 3 turnpoints are declared
> before the flight, but the order of the turnpoints, and
> whether 1,2,or all 3 turnpoints are claimed
> is declared after the flight. I haven't seen this clearly explained
> anywhere but on some of the declaration forms themselves.

You're right twice. It is correct (for badges), and not clear at all :-(((

> This is different from what I would conceptually
> consider "free," which is when three turnpoins would
> be chosen after the flight from the three points on the gps trace
> which are furthest apart.

That's the "free distance with up to 3 turn points for records"

> Anyone with more comment on this please correct me if
> this is mistaken...I've only flown one free 3TP record,
> and the "free 3TP" task and form were what I used.

In short, the "free 3TP" is free for records, and declared (except the
finish point and the sequence) for badges.

This may be explained by historical reasons, but nowadays it is a full
nonsense : the logic would implie that there be "free 3TP" -- like
actual 3 TP for records -- and (declared) 3 TP -- like actual 3 TP for
badges, but with declared finish point and TP sequence.

Furthermore, there should be an additionnal record category for
"declared 3TP" now that every other type of task ( straight distance,
out&return, triangles) have both declared and free records !

But is IGC any logical ? :-(((

--
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]

Tim Newport-Peace wrote:

> 4.2.1 Declaration content
> --------snip
> e. Way points and the sequence to be flown, start, turn(s), finish/goal
> as applicable to the specific soaring performance *

I suppose that "as applicable to the specific soaring performance" means
that "sequence" -- as well as goal ! -- are not applicable to the free
distance w/3TP, or that you must declare it, but you need not fly it as
declared (!)

--
Denis

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

[Mark James Boyd]

Denis > wrote:
>
>I don't know which competitions you are speaking about, nor their
>particular rules. I am refeering to SC3 annex A, where the distance is
>calculated by the turn point itself, center of the beer can.
>
>> Do you have a reference for this? How big is the beer can?
>
>Look at the agenda of 2004 IGC meeting on www.fai.org/gliding site (I
>don't know if the proposal has been approved by the plenary, but it is
>likely because it was a year 2 proposal) .
>
>The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
>from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.

Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and
then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by
a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short...

I suppose for any task it makes sense to tack on a few extra km,
and be extra sure to hit the OZ (maybe two tight turns around the point)
to make absolutely sure...

Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything...
See old threads for arguments on this...
--

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

[Mark James Boyd]

In article >,
Denis > wrote:
>Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
>> I have to point out a confusion that I had as well about
>> definitions.
>>
>> A "free 3TP" task means the 3 turnpoints are declared
>> before the flight, but the order of the turnpoints, and
>> whether 1,2,or all 3 turnpoints are claimed
>> is declared after the flight. I haven't seen this clearly explained
>> anywhere but on some of the declaration forms themselves.
>
>You're right twice. It is correct (for badges), and not clear at all :-(((
>
>> This is different from what I would conceptually
>> consider "free," which is when three turnpoins would
>> be chosen after the flight from the three points on the gps trace
>> which are furthest apart.
>
>That's the "free distance with up to 3 turn points for records"
>
>> Anyone with more comment on this please correct me if
>> this is mistaken...I've only flown one free 3TP record,
>> and the "free 3TP" task and form were what I used.
>
>In short, the "free 3TP" is free for records, and declared (except the
>finish point and the sequence) for badges.
>
>This may be explained by historical reasons, but nowadays it is a full
>nonsense : the logic would implie that there be "free 3TP" -- like
>actual 3 TP for records -- and (declared) 3 TP -- like actual 3 TP for
>badges, but with declared finish point and TP sequence.
>
>Furthermore, there should be an additionnal record category for
>"declared 3TP" now that every other type of task ( straight distance,
>out&return, triangles) have both declared and free records !

Well, you've done a much better job clarifying that. I didn't
know the record "free 3TP" could be points declared after the
flight. Interesting...
--

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

[Denis]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

>>The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
>>from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.
>
> Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and
> then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by
> a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short...

if you declare and fly the OZ (outside quadrant), using the WGS85
distance, it should be OK !

> Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything...
> See old threads for arguments on this...

I still think keeping quadrants (or even buoys you should fly around)
would have been better, but now that beer cans are in most comps,
loggers, etc., it's better use them for badges also

--
Denis

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

[tango4]

Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
the beercan more firmly in the rules.

What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software
that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond
the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound
tracks!

This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their
observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km
longer for each tp used.

Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors
used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance.

Sound to me like its all getting more complicated rather than less so.

Ian

"Denis" > wrote in message
...
> Mark James Boyd wrote:
>
> >>The beer can has a 500 m radius like in Annex A, and 1 km is subtracted
> >>from the distance at each turnpoint when beer can is used.
> >
> > Hmmmm...I wonder if I declare a course which is 300.1 KM, and
> > then go fly it by turning each point just outside the point by
> > a few hundred meters, if this means I will be 3 KM short...
>
> if you declare and fly the OZ (outside quadrant), using the WGS85
> distance, it should be OK !
>
> > Still dunno why a beer can was ever introduced for anything...
> > See old threads for arguments on this...
>
> I still think keeping quadrants (or even buoys you should fly around)
> would have been better, but now that beer cans are in most comps,
> loggers, etc., it's better use them for badges also
>
> --
> Denis
>
> R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
> Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?

[Ian Johnston]

On Sun, 14 Mar 2004 07:31:17 UTC, "tango4"
> wrote:

: Sound to me like its all getting more complicated rather than less so.

No committee has ever voted to make things less complicated.

Ian


--

[Eric Greenwell]

tango4 wrote:
> Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
> accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
> silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
> the beercan more firmly in the rules.
>
> What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software
> that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km beyond
> the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound
> tracks!
>
> This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their
> observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km
> longer for each tp used.
>
> Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO sectors
> used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance.

Will written declarations really require the task distances, when the
electronic declarations won't?

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[Eric Greenwell]

tango4 wrote:

> Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable to
> accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
> silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just embedded
> the beercan more firmly in the rules.

Beer can turnpoints were already in use the USA long before GPS came
along, when we were using cameras in our contests. It was not a new
invention, as least for us. It was much easier to use (pilots and photo
interpertation) than the 90 degree sector with cameras and GPS.

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

Eric Greenwell
Washington State
USA

[tango4]

Too each his own I guess. As a pilot who has managed to accumulate all the
minor badges with the little shiny stones on without actually having a claim
turned down for documentation reasons my approach would be to state the TP
styles in use, both 'distances' to the actual tps and the shorter version if
BC's are used.

Ian


"Eric Greenwell" > wrote in message
...
> tango4 wrote:
> > Beer cans grew out of the use of the early GPS systems that were unable
to
> > accept the programming of a sector based 'observation zone'. The really
> > silly thing is that now the technology has caught up we have just
embedded
> > the beercan more firmly in the rules.
> >
> > What you need, having declared a point turnpoint, is a piece of software
> > that calculates the centre point of a beercan that has its centre 1km
beyond
> > the actual point on the external bisector of the inbound and outbound
> > tracks!
> >
> > This means that you declare the 'false' beercans and just fly into their
> > observation beercans and head for home. Either that or just declare 1km
> > longer for each tp used.
> >
> > Of course you now have to write on the declaration the type of OO
sectors
> > used, the normal task distance and the 'corrected' task distance.
>
> Will written declarations really require the task distances, when the
> electronic declarations won't?
>
> --
> -----
> change "netto" to "net" to email me directly
>
> Eric Greenwell
> Washington State
> USA
>

[Denis]

Denis wrote:

> PapaIndia wrote:
>
>> Did anything happen at the Lausanne meeting?
>
>
> http://www.fai.org/gliding/meetings/2004/keydecisionsfrom2004.pdf
>
and now there are the minutes:

http://www.fai.org/gliding/meetings/2004/igc_minutes2004.pdf

--
Denis

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