10 km's apart

[K.P. Termaat]

For a distance flight using up to three turn points the Sporting Code says
at 1.4.5.b. : "The turn points must be at least 10 kilometers apart and may
be claimed once, etc."

Why "10 km", why "once". Does anybody know.

Karel

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, K.P. Termaat
> writes
>For a distance flight using up to three turn points the Sporting Code says
>at 1.4.5.b. : "The turn points must be at least 10 kilometers apart and may
>be claimed once, etc."
>
>Why "10 km", why "once". Does anybody know.

It was an arbitrary distance decided on by Tor Johannessen when he was
in charge of Sporting Code rules some years ago. The intention was to
prevent repeat use of a particular turn point. I was Sporting Code
editor (under Tor) at that time and argued against it, but did not
prevail.

After all, it is for a distance rather than a goal flight and I would
have though that if the required distance can be proved, that should be
sufficient. And even for a goal flight, what is wrong with a repeat
turn point as long as it is in the pre-flight declaration and the
geometry of the course is correct for the type of flight concerned?

However, I think that it is right that some rule prevents the use of
lots of repeat legs, or even lots of legs, in wave or ridge lift. That
was the purpose of the "up to three turn points".

Any figure, 10km or other, is arbitrary. A slight error, say 9.9 km
would lead to the whole flight being rejected whereas 10.1 km would be
OK. As you say, Karel, "why?"

Particularly now that free (no pre-flight turn point declaration) flying
for various distance records is allowed, perhaps the whole matter of
distance and goal definitions should be looked at again by IGC. For
instance, where "distance" is the criteria rather than "goal", why do
not free flight rules apply? And for free flights where waypoints can
be selected by the pilot after flight, why is a pre-flight declaration
needed at all?

Just a couple of "stones into the millpond" .........

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

[K.P. Termaat]

Hello Ian,

Thanks for your extensive reply. Quite happy with that.
I have sent you a personal reply with some more details.
For the discussion on ras let me reply in short again.

The OO ruined a 1000 km FAI badge just a week ago being unaware of the 10
km FAI requirement. Or may be FAI did that.

The flight in question was:
Starting point ST
1st turnpoint A (leg of 99 km to the NE)
2nd turnpoint B (leg of 403 km to the S)
3rd turnpoint A (leg of 403 km to the N)
Finishpoint FP (leg of 99 km to the SW)

So a distance flight using up to three turnpoints. Total length 1004.3 km.
An excellent performance flown one would say. Not to FAI however. FAI
considers the return to A as a "jojo" after having flown more then 800 km to
and back from B. So no 1000 km FAI badge.

Of course the flight fullfils our national rules for a 1-3 tp free flight
and the pilot will receive a 1000 km badge from our National Gliding
Organisation for his outstanding performance.

To prevent "jojo-ing" between two waypoints of a 1-3 tp flight we have in
our national rule the simple statement "Each visit to a turnpoint increases
the number by one". Prevents "jojo-ing" and does not destroy an excellent
performance as the one described.

Of cource the popular OLC recognises this flight also. Maximises the
distance flown to 1012.2 km using 4 turnpoints (see OLC site).

Best regards

Karel NL

"Ian Strachan" > schreef in bericht
...
> In article >, K.P. Termaat
> > writes
> >For a distance flight using up to three turn points the Sporting Code
says
> >at 1.4.5.b. : "The turn points must be at least 10 kilometers apart and
may
> >be claimed once, etc."
> >
> >Why "10 km", why "once". Does anybody know.
>
> It was an arbitrary distance decided on by Tor Johannessen when he was
> in charge of Sporting Code rules some years ago. The intention was to
> prevent repeat use of a particular turn point. I was Sporting Code
> editor (under Tor) at that time and argued against it, but did not
> prevail.
>
> After all, it is for a distance rather than a goal flight and I would
> have though that if the required distance can be proved, that should be
> sufficient. And even for a goal flight, what is wrong with a repeat
> turn point as long as it is in the pre-flight declaration and the
> geometry of the course is correct for the type of flight concerned?
>
> However, I think that it is right that some rule prevents the use of
> lots of repeat legs, or even lots of legs, in wave or ridge lift. That
> was the purpose of the "up to three turn points".
>
> Any figure, 10km or other, is arbitrary. A slight error, say 9.9 km
> would lead to the whole flight being rejected whereas 10.1 km would be
> OK. As you say, Karel, "why?"
>
> Particularly now that free (no pre-flight turn point declaration) flying
> for various distance records is allowed, perhaps the whole matter of
> distance and goal definitions should be looked at again by IGC. For
> instance, where "distance" is the criteria rather than "goal", why do
> not free flight rules apply? And for free flights where waypoints can
> be selected by the pilot after flight, why is a pre-flight declaration
> needed at all?
>
> Just a couple of "stones into the millpond" .........
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre, UK
>
> Bentworth Hall West
> Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
> Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND
>
>
>

[Robert Danewid]

I agree with you Karel.

This is surely a leftover from ancient days. We skipped that rule for
our National redcords and our "Nattional OLC" (which, BTW, has been
running since 1945) many years ago.

At least you can say that there was a purpose in the old days because it
wsa a sport in itself to find two tutnpoints close together but still 10
km apart. Not so easy to find in a forrested country like Sweden. Today
with the GPS loggers you can calculate 2 TP:s with that are exactly 10
km apart........ so there is no sport in it any more. KISS!!!

When Ray Lynskey flew the first 2000K flight it was not recognized as a
world record, so consequently the SC was changed the following year to
allow 3 TP courses.

Ronalds flight is quite an achievement so why not use it as an argument
for a proposal to the IGC for the 2005 meeting? We will support it!

Robert Danewid
Sweden

K.P. Termaat wrote:
> Hello Ian,
>
> Thanks for your extensive reply. Quite happy with that.
> I have sent you a personal reply with some more details.
> For the discussion on ras let me reply in short again.
>
> The OO ruined a 1000 km FAI badge just a week ago being unaware of the 10
> km FAI requirement. Or may be FAI did that.
>
> The flight in question was:
> Starting point ST
> 1st turnpoint A (leg of 99 km to the NE)
> 2nd turnpoint B (leg of 403 km to the S)
> 3rd turnpoint A (leg of 403 km to the N)
> Finishpoint FP (leg of 99 km to the SW)
>
> So a distance flight using up to three turnpoints. Total length 1004.3 km.
> An excellent performance flown one would say. Not to FAI however. FAI
> considers the return to A as a "jojo" after having flown more then 800 km to
> and back from B. So no 1000 km FAI badge.
>
> Of course the flight fullfils our national rules for a 1-3 tp free flight
> and the pilot will receive a 1000 km badge from our National Gliding
> Organisation for his outstanding performance.
>
> To prevent "jojo-ing" between two waypoints of a 1-3 tp flight we have in
> our national rule the simple statement "Each visit to a turnpoint increases
> the number by one". Prevents "jojo-ing" and does not destroy an excellent
> performance as the one described.
>
> Of cource the popular OLC recognises this flight also. Maximises the
> distance flown to 1012.2 km using 4 turnpoints (see OLC site).
>
> Best regards
>
> Karel NL
>
> "Ian Strachan" > schreef in bericht
> ...
>
>>In article >, K.P. Termaat
> writes
>>
>>>For a distance flight using up to three turn points the Sporting Code
>
> says
>
>>>at 1.4.5.b. : "The turn points must be at least 10 kilometers apart and
>
> may
>
>>>be claimed once, etc."
>>>
>>>Why "10 km", why "once". Does anybody know.
>>
>>It was an arbitrary distance decided on by Tor Johannessen when he was
>>in charge of Sporting Code rules some years ago. The intention was to
>>prevent repeat use of a particular turn point. I was Sporting Code
>>editor (under Tor) at that time and argued against it, but did not
>>prevail.
>>
>>After all, it is for a distance rather than a goal flight and I would
>>have though that if the required distance can be proved, that should be
>>sufficient. And even for a goal flight, what is wrong with a repeat
>>turn point as long as it is in the pre-flight declaration and the
>>geometry of the course is correct for the type of flight concerned?
>>
>>However, I think that it is right that some rule prevents the use of
>>lots of repeat legs, or even lots of legs, in wave or ridge lift. That
>>was the purpose of the "up to three turn points".
>>
>>Any figure, 10km or other, is arbitrary. A slight error, say 9.9 km
>>would lead to the whole flight being rejected whereas 10.1 km would be
>>OK. As you say, Karel, "why?"
>>
>>Particularly now that free (no pre-flight turn point declaration) flying
>>for various distance records is allowed, perhaps the whole matter of
>>distance and goal definitions should be looked at again by IGC. For
>>instance, where "distance" is the criteria rather than "goal", why do
>>not free flight rules apply? And for free flights where waypoints can
>>be selected by the pilot after flight, why is a pre-flight declaration
>>needed at all?
>>
>>Just a couple of "stones into the millpond" .........
>>
>>--
>>Ian Strachan
>>Lasham Gliding Centre, UK
>>
Bentworth Hall West
>>Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
>>Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>

[Caracole]

"K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message >...
> Hello Ian,
>
SNIP
>
> The OO ruined a 1000 km FAI badge just a week ago being unaware of the 10
> km FAI requirement. Or may be FAI did that.
>
> The flight in question was:

Karel:

The flight in question was likely a wonderful flight full of
memories for the pilot. A great personal accomplishment. Pass him
my congratulations.

However, I object to you laying the blame of ruin at the feet of
either the OO, or the FAI. It is the pilot's responsibility to
plan their flight and understand the Code. It is disappointing
that someone would offer to serve as an OO (regardless of being
allowed, knowledge is a second factor) and not be conversant
enough with the rules to "assist" a pilot. The 10km rule has
stood in place for many years now.

A pilot flying for 1000-km has had ample opportunity to read the
FAI code, and presumably has completed other badge legs and as such
may be "qualified" as an OO in their own right. But, that is a
presumption on my part. Nowadays, it could be a pilot of only
a few months in a 60:1 L/D glider, or perhaps an ETA.

I am only teasing a little bit here.... and hope that all readers
will remember that they are the pilot-in-command, and not seek to
lay 'fault' elsewhere.
I find that outlook in too many arenas, other than soaring.

Best wishes,

Cindy Brickner
Caracole Soaring

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Robert Danewid
> writes

snip

>When Ray Lynskey flew the first 2000K flight it was not recognized as a
>world record, so consequently the SC was changed the following year to
>allow 3 TP courses.

I do not think that was so, Tor Johannessen simply formulated more
flexible distance rules for badges, not at that time for world records.
In fact in the 1960s you could fly three legs for badge flights,
sometime later for reasons unknown this was restricted but is now back.

I have always thought that as long as a "straight downwind dash" is
allowed for distance and goal flights, some pretty versatile rules
should apply for flights with turn points, particularly those that start
and finish at the same place. In long thin countries like the UK and
others, the three turn point distance is particularly appropriate to
keep you away from sea effects and over good soaring terrain without
risking long retrieves if "sod's law" prevails and you land out at the
farthest extremity of the course. I recall a Lasham pilot declaring an
out-and-return to a lake (reservoir, actually) in farthest Wales, and
landing just below the lake in a remote Welsh valley. Perhaps his
retrieve car keys were in his pocket as well (I cannot recall), but that
sort of thing convinced me decades ago of the merit of motor gliders!

What DID happen, as I recall, was when the first 2000 km out-and-return
was flown in New Zealand, the photo evidence rule was that "the turn
point itself must appear on the photo". This was a hang-over from
competitions where such a rule was introduced for the convenience of
photo-assessing. But outside comps, the principle should always have
been "proof of presence in the appropriate Observation Zone". The 2000k
O&R was accepted after a delay "finding the turn point" on the photos,
but the case was used by me and others to point out the anomaly and the
requirement for the TP itself to be in the picture was dropped from the
Code. The increasing use of GPS recorders also helped. Principle won
over convenience, I am glad to say!

>Ronalds flight is quite an achievement so why not use it as an argument
>for a proposal to the IGC for the 2005 meeting? We will support it!

Glad you and I agree for once, Robert ! I am merely a Committee
chairman and could not make such a proposal to IGC, it is outside the
remit of my Committee. But you Aero Club delegates can. What about my
other points on declarations and free flights?

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

[Robert Danewid]

Ian

I was present at the 1991 IGC meeting in Queeenstown, just a couple of
months after Rays flight, which he presented at the meeting. Perhaps I
was fouled again at an IGC meeting, but my impression was clearly that
to fly so long tasks we needed more TP:s.

We have seen all this stuff several times, I amquite sure that
eventually we will have COTS loggers apporved. Do you remember when we
went from marking the TP:s with ground markers to cameras? I think it is
called evolution.

BTW, it is more fun to debate with you Ian than to agree with you!
Have nice summer.


Robert

Ian Strachan wrote:
> In article >, Robert Danewid
> > writes
>
> snip
>
>> When Ray Lynskey flew the first 2000K flight it was not recognized as
>> a world record, so consequently the SC was changed the following year
>> to allow 3 TP courses.
>
>
> I do not think that was so, Tor Johannessen simply formulated more
> flexible distance rules for badges, not at that time for world records.
> In fact in the 1960s you could fly three legs for badge flights,
> sometime later for reasons unknown this was restricted but is now back.
>
> I have always thought that as long as a "straight downwind dash" is
> allowed for distance and goal flights, some pretty versatile rules
> should apply for flights with turn points, particularly those that start
> and finish at the same place. In long thin countries like the UK and
> others, the three turn point distance is particularly appropriate to
> keep you away from sea effects and over good soaring terrain without
> risking long retrieves if "sod's law" prevails and you land out at the
> farthest extremity of the course. I recall a Lasham pilot declaring an
> out-and-return to a lake (reservoir, actually) in farthest Wales, and
> landing just below the lake in a remote Welsh valley. Perhaps his
> retrieve car keys were in his pocket as well (I cannot recall), but that
> sort of thing convinced me decades ago of the merit of motor gliders!
>
> What DID happen, as I recall, was when the first 2000 km out-and-return
> was flown in New Zealand, the photo evidence rule was that "the turn
> point itself must appear on the photo". This was a hang-over from
> competitions where such a rule was introduced for the convenience of
> photo-assessing. But outside comps, the principle should always have
> been "proof of presence in the appropriate Observation Zone". The 2000k
> O&R was accepted after a delay "finding the turn point" on the photos,
> but the case was used by me and others to point out the anomaly and the
> requirement for the TP itself to be in the picture was dropped from the
> Code. The increasing use of GPS recorders also helped. Principle won
> over convenience, I am glad to say!
>
>> Ronalds flight is quite an achievement so why not use it as an
>> argument for a proposal to the IGC for the 2005 meeting? We will
>> support it!
>
>
> Glad you and I agree for once, Robert ! I am merely a Committee
> chairman and could not make such a proposal to IGC, it is outside the
> remit of my Committee. But you Aero Club delegates can. What about my
> other points on declarations and free flights?
>

[Janos Bauer]

Robert Danewid wrote:

> We have seen all this stuff several times, I amquite sure that
> eventually we will have COTS loggers apporved. Do you remember when we
> went from marking the TP:s with ground markers to cameras? I think it is
> called evolution.

It's really good to read such positive opinion.

/Janos

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Robert Danewid
> writes
>Ian
>
>I was present at the 1991 IGC meeting in Queeenstown, just a couple of
>months after Rays flight, which he presented at the meeting. Perhaps I
>was fouled again at an IGC meeting, but my impression was clearly that
>to fly so long tasks we needed more TP:s.

OK, I was not at the meeting at Queenstown in New Zealand so I bow to
your memory.

>We have seen all this stuff several times, I amquite sure that
>eventually we will have COTS loggers apporved.

I fail to see what these issues of distance flying rules have to do with
the use or otherwise of COTS GPS units.

Could it be a fixation of yours, more appropriate for another thread on
newsgroup r.a.s.? Anyway as I am sure that you know, I and others are
working on rules that might be approved by IGC for the use of such COTS
GPS units for badge flights up to Diamonds. The "up to Diamonds"
IGC-approval level is currently used for the EW series of GPS flight
recorders which are recorder units that need a NMEA feed from specified
Garmin GPS receiver units.

>Do you remember when we went from marking the TP:s with ground markers
>to cameras?

Too right, in the mid-1960s I wrote the rules for and than ran a trial
of photographic evidence on behalf of the BGA at a competition at
Bicester in the UK. It was successful and I drafted the first BGA rules
for photographic evidence as a result. These included the use of Kodak
Instamatic cameras which were at the time simple and almost
glider-pilot-proof. I remember that at the Bicester trial, one guy with
a 35mm camera managed to fail to load the film properly and thought that
he had taken 24 or 36 pictures when in fact none were exposed because
the film was not winding on. And now we have 24 satellites whizzing
around giving position to 10 metres or so. Amazing!

>BTW, it is more fun to debate with you Ian than to agree with you!

Ah, that explains it.

PS: what about my other points on no need for declarations for free
flights, and why not allow free flights for badge distance requirements
on the basis that proven distance is just that, a distance achievement?

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

[Mark James Boyd]

I must say I'm soundly against using any more than 3 turnpoints for
badge performances. If there is no min distance between turnpoints
and enough are used, one could claim thermalling as "distance."
I flew 520km one day (according to the GPS "totals") but it
was mostly just in a circle :P

I think the 3TP idea and rules as they stand are quite reasonable.
One can still fly an out-and-return or triangle closed course
concurrently, since start and finish are NOT considered turnpoints
in the rules (according to my understanding). Having them 10km apart
may even add a little to safety assuming several pilots are attempting
the same task and want to avoid hitting each other on the way
back...

Of course it's one more detail to check before attempting a task...and
that IS a tiny bit annoying...

In article >,
Ian Strachan > wrote:
>In article >, Robert Danewid
> writes
>
>snip
>
>>When Ray Lynskey flew the first 2000K flight it was not recognized as a
>>world record, so consequently the SC was changed the following year to
>>allow 3 TP courses.
>
>I do not think that was so, Tor Johannessen simply formulated more
>flexible distance rules for badges, not at that time for world records.
>In fact in the 1960s you could fly three legs for badge flights,
>sometime later for reasons unknown this was restricted but is now back.
>
>I have always thought that as long as a "straight downwind dash" is
>allowed for distance and goal flights, some pretty versatile rules
>should apply for flights with turn points, particularly those that start
>and finish at the same place. In long thin countries like the UK and
>others, the three turn point distance is particularly appropriate to
>keep you away from sea effects and over good soaring terrain without
>risking long retrieves if "sod's law" prevails and you land out at the
>farthest extremity of the course. I recall a Lasham pilot declaring an
>out-and-return to a lake (reservoir, actually) in farthest Wales, and
>landing just below the lake in a remote Welsh valley. Perhaps his
>retrieve car keys were in his pocket as well (I cannot recall), but that
>sort of thing convinced me decades ago of the merit of motor gliders!
>
>What DID happen, as I recall, was when the first 2000 km out-and-return
>was flown in New Zealand, the photo evidence rule was that "the turn
>point itself must appear on the photo". This was a hang-over from
>competitions where such a rule was introduced for the convenience of
>photo-assessing. But outside comps, the principle should always have
>been "proof of presence in the appropriate Observation Zone". The 2000k
>O&R was accepted after a delay "finding the turn point" on the photos,
>but the case was used by me and others to point out the anomaly and the
>requirement for the TP itself to be in the picture was dropped from the
>Code. The increasing use of GPS recorders also helped. Principle won
>over convenience, I am glad to say!
>
>>Ronalds flight is quite an achievement so why not use it as an argument
>>for a proposal to the IGC for the 2005 meeting? We will support it!
>
>Glad you and I agree for once, Robert ! I am merely a Committee
>chairman and could not make such a proposal to IGC, it is outside the
>remit of my Committee. But you Aero Club delegates can. What about my
>other points on declarations and free flights?
>
>--
>Ian Strachan
>
Bentworth Hall West
>Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
>Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND
>
>
>


--

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

[K.P. Termaat]

Hello Mark,

FAI is right when it tries to avoid that pilots fly back and forth between
two nearby waypoints to achieve a large distance claim, e.g. for the 1000 km
badge. Everybody will have sympathy for this position. And three turnpoints
looks o.k. to me also.
So there is a rule for that in the Code. And one can say "a rule is a rule".
However when the hidden effect of this rule is disastrous for an excellent
and very sportif distance achievement then to my humble opinion there is
something wrong with the definition of the rule. The rule now says "10 km
apart and not a second time" with the aim of avoiding "jojo-ing" between
nearby turnpoints. Looks o.k. at first glance. At second glance however
there is a severe hidden malfunction in this rule. One can hardly say that
having flown hundreds of km's and returning many hours later back to the
first waypoint has anything to do with "jojo-ing".
Is a claimed 'out and return' of 800 km with start and finishpoint a
"jojo". Of course not. Is an 'out and return' of 800 km as part of a larger
claimed distance flight a "jojo". Of course not also.
So the malfunction in the FAI rule should be corrected for is the way to go
I think. In fact a better rule looks very easy to me indeed. Considering the
"Distance using up to three turnpoints" (1.4.5.b in the Code), what do you
think of a rule like "At each visit of a turnpoint the number increases by
one".
Very simple and effective I think to avoid "jojo-ing" and not having the
disastrous hidden effect on an excellent cross country flight of over 1000
km.

Karel

"Mark James Boyd" > schreef in bericht
news:40c107b5$1@darkstar...
> I must say I'm soundly against using any more than 3 turnpoints for
> badge performances.

[Robert Danewid]

Ian

10 km and Cots has just one thing in common. We glider pilots are so
keen to discuss technical topics, that really is not significant for the
survival of our beloved sport. As you, I am an engineer, but I have
realized that we engineers, and there are plenty of us in gliding, just
love to solve every poblem with a technical solution, even if the
optimal solution is not technical.

I mean, logger security, the distance between TP:s, GPS altitude or
pressure saltitude etc etc, which we spend so much time on, will we get
more new members if we use GPS altitude, skip the 10 km rule or allow COTS?

NO...... but it is is damn fun to discuss!

May be it is a bit annoying, but I support your proposals for free
flight for badges.

As always Ian, it is stimulating to debate with you.

Robert

Ian Strachan wrote:
> In article >, Robert Danewid
> > writes
>
>> Ian
>>
>> I was present at the 1991 IGC meeting in Queeenstown, just a couple of
>> months after Rays flight, which he presented at the meeting. Perhaps I
>> was fouled again at an IGC meeting, but my impression was clearly that
>> to fly so long tasks we needed more TP:s.
>
>
> OK, I was not at the meeting at Queenstown in New Zealand so I bow to
> your memory.
>
>> We have seen all this stuff several times, I amquite sure that
>> eventually we will have COTS loggers apporved.
>
>
> I fail to see what these issues of distance flying rules have to do with
> the use or otherwise of COTS GPS units.
>
> Could it be a fixation of yours, more appropriate for another thread on
> newsgroup r.a.s.? Anyway as I am sure that you know, I and others are
> working on rules that might be approved by IGC for the use of such COTS
> GPS units for badge flights up to Diamonds. The "up to Diamonds"
> IGC-approval level is currently used for the EW series of GPS flight
> recorders which are recorder units that need a NMEA feed from specified
> Garmin GPS receiver units.
>
>> Do you remember when we went from marking the TP:s with ground markers
>> to cameras?
>
>
> Too right, in the mid-1960s I wrote the rules for and than ran a trial
> of photographic evidence on behalf of the BGA at a competition at
> Bicester in the UK. It was successful and I drafted the first BGA rules
> for photographic evidence as a result. These included the use of Kodak
> Instamatic cameras which were at the time simple and almost
> glider-pilot-proof. I remember that at the Bicester trial, one guy with
> a 35mm camera managed to fail to load the film properly and thought that
> he had taken 24 or 36 pictures when in fact none were exposed because
> the film was not winding on. And now we have 24 satellites whizzing
> around giving position to 10 metres or so. Amazing!
>
>> BTW, it is more fun to debate with you Ian than to agree with you!
>
>
> Ah, that explains it.
>
> PS: what about my other points on no need for declarations for free
> flights, and why not allow free flights for badge distance requirements
> on the basis that proven distance is just that, a distance achievement?
>

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Robert Danewid
> writes

snip

>I support your proposals for free flight for badges.

OK, you national delegates that can make proposals to IGC, go for it!

>As always Ian, it is stimulating to debate with you.

I am quite humbled by what you say. But debate is not as good as action
and decisions that enrich our sport.

--
Ian Strachan

Bentworth Hall West
Tel: +44 1420 564 195 Bentworth, Alton
Fax: +44 1420 563 140 Hampshire GU34 5LA, ENGLAND

[Ruud]

On 4 Jun 2004 00:09:20 -0700, (Caracole) wrote:

> I object to you laying the blame of ruin at the feet of
> the OO

Well Cindy, Karel is only blaming himself ;-)
I have to agree with him that it's a silly rule and it does not serve
any pupose in a 1000 Km flight.
I think that all rules must have a clear purpose.
Can anyone explain the purpose of the 10 Km-rule in a 1000 Km flight?
A complicating factor is also the very complex airspace structure in
our part of the world.

BTW this flight is an excellent achievement.
Have a look at:
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2004/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=119825

It inspired several other contenders to go after the first official
1000 km FAI diploma flown from the Netherlands.

[Jack]

Todd Pattist wrote:

> ...I think there's a good chance we might keep more
> by getting them to make the transition to XC flying,
> lured on by the first Silver distance leg that we make
> easy to prove with a COTS.

This is true.

It does no good for retention to present a list of rules many of which are
awkward, expensive, and irrelevant.

Badges have no intrinsic value; we have competitions to weed out pretenders; the
competitions themselves are too often built upon rules the like of which would
make no sense in any other sport with which most are familiar -- and yet we
can't understand why the sport is not sought after by 10,000 new participants
each year.

Ridiculous.



Jack

[Kirk Stant]

Ruud > wrote in message >...

> BTW this flight is an excellent achievement.
> Have a look at:
> http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2004/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=119825
>
> It inspired several other contenders to go after the first official
> 1000 km FAI diploma flown from the Netherlands.

Would it be possible to satisfy the 10km separation between TPs 1 and
3 by judicious use of a "virtual" TP (1 or 3) on this flight? In other
words, declare a point 10 km away from TP 1 but on the track for TP 3?
Might be fun to play with it in SeeYou.

The flying is getting easier; it's the rest that is getting hard!

But it's still all a lot of fun.

Great flight, BTW.

Kirk

[Mark James Boyd]

>I mean, logger security, the distance between TP:s, GPS altitude or
>pressure saltitude etc etc, which we spend so much time on, will we get
>more new members if we use GPS altitude, skip the 10 km rule or allow COTS?
>
>NO...... but it is is damn fun to discuss!

Oh, I disagree. Allowing GPS altitude and COTS would have
given several pilots I know a lot more to talk about
to their friends after several flights, and some buttons and
pins to show off, and got them interacting with SSA for their
badges. Things that make soaring, and the recognition of
soaring achievements easier, help the sport. Maybe not in the
quick way of making droves of new members apply, but anything
that makes a part of aviation even marginally easier (nosewheel
vs. tailwheel is another example) does have some effect, though
it be hard to determine.
--

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

[Jack]

Mark James Boyd wrote:

> ...anything that makes a part of aviation even marginally easier
> (nosewheel vs. tailwheel is another example) does have some effect....

Now you've done it!

Nosewheels have definitely lowered the quality of the powered aviation
experience -- roughly to the same degree that rational competition and logging
rules _would_ do for the sport of soaring.



Jack