"10km / only once" amendment

[K.P. Termaat]

Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other
respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an
excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the true
intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way.
I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His
flight can be seen at
http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2004/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=119825
The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his
third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly flat
country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the "10
km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot be
granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are
talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a still
larger flight rather then a "yoyo".
Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to achieve
a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in wave
or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent that
such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the
rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely out
of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it.
Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart / only
once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a great
performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points" (1.4.5.b.
of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three
turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a turn
point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not at
all I guess.
What do you think of a rule like:
"In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can
be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in 1.4.5.b.
of the Code.

Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next
meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we like
to give it a ''best shot".

Regards,

Karel Termaat, NL

[Mike]

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:

> Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other
> respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an
> excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the true
> intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way.
> I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His
> flight can be seen at
> http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2004/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=119825
> The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his
> third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly flat
> country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the "10
> km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot be
> granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are
> talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a still
> larger flight rather then a "yoyo".
> Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to achieve
> a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in wave
> or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent that
> such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the
> rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely out
> of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it.
> Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart / only
> once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a great
> performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points" (1.4.5.b.
> of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three
> turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a turn
> point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not at
> all I guess.
> What do you think of a rule like:
> "In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can
> be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in 1.4.5.b.
> of the Code.
>
> Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next
> meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we like
> to give it a ''best shot".

While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for
about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and
revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed
so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources
have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/
lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same
as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some
elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my
short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1 hour
ago.

Mike
Ka8 (non-contest MU)
M-ASA

[tango4]

Why not say 'for tasks up to 300km in length the turnpoints must be 10km
apart and may not be used more than once'

Ian

"Mike" > wrote in message
. ..
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:
>
> > Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other
> > respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an
> > excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the
true
> > intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way.
> > I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His
> > flight can be seen at
> > http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2004/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=119825
> > The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his
> > third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly
flat
> > country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the
"10
> > km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot
be
> > granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are
> > talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a
still
> > larger flight rather then a "yoyo".
> > Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to
achieve
> > a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in
wave
> > or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent
that
> > such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the
> > rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely
out
> > of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it.
> > Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart /
only
> > once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a
great
> > performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points"
(1.4.5.b.
> > of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three
> > turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a
turn
> > point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not
at
> > all I guess.
> > What do you think of a rule like:
> > "In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints
can
> > be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in
1.4.5.b.
> > of the Code.
> >
> > Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next
> > meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we
like
> > to give it a ''best shot".
>
> While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for
> about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and
> revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed
> so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources
> have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/
> lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same
> as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some
> elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my
> short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1 hour
> ago.
>
> Mike
> Ka8 (non-contest MU)
> M-ASA
>
>
>

[K.P. Termaat]

I think it's better to have no figures at all to prevent "yoyo-ing" but a
clear short statement without underlying traps.
May be my suggestion fulfils this.

Karel


"tango4" > schreef in bericht
...
> Why not say 'for tasks up to 300km in length the turnpoints must be 10km
> apart and may not be used more than once'
>
> Ian
>
> "Mike" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:
> >
> > > Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and
other
> > > respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that
an
> > > excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which
the
> true
> > > intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way.
> > > I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat.
His
> > > flight can be seen at
> > > http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2004/ausw_fluginfo.php?ref3=119825
> > > The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as
his
> > > third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly
> flat
> > > country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the
> "10
> > > km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge
cannot
> be
> > > granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are
> > > talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a
> still
> > > larger flight rather then a "yoyo".
> > > Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to
> achieve
> > > a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in
> wave
> > > or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent
> that
> > > such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However
the
> > > rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is
completely
> out
> > > of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it.
> > > Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart /
> only
> > > once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a
> great
> > > performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points"
> (1.4.5.b.
> > > of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three
> > > turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times
a
> turn
> > > point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule;
not
> at
> > > all I guess.
> > > What do you think of a rule like:
> > > "In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared
turnpoints
> can
> > > be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in
> 1.4.5.b.
> > > of the Code.
> > >
> > > Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next
> > > meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we
> like
> > > to give it a ''best shot".
> >
> > While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for
> > about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and
> > revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed
> > so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources
> > have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/
> > lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same
> > as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some
> > elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my
> > short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1
hour
> > ago.
> >
> > Mike
> > Ka8 (non-contest MU)
> > M-ASA
> >
> >
> >
>
>

[CV]

> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:
>>What do you think of a rule like:
>>"In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can
>>be claimed"

Not really clear what is meant with that wording.

But, if it is only about precluding excessive yo-yoing, wouldn't it
be sufficient to just stipulate a maximum number of turnpoits, say
three or four, regardless of the distance between them, or even if
they coincide.

CV

[K.P. Termaat]

You are absolutely right Todd and the way of thinking of CV is o.k. too. There is nothing wrong with visiting a first waypoint of a flight a second time after hundreds of kilometers and many hours later, especially in a flat country like NL.

But abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule completely would allow pilots to declare just two turnpoints in the 1.4.5.b flight definition and fly back and forth between them for ever to obtain a large distance suitable to be awarded with the 1000 km FAI badge. This is not right of course.
So there must be a rule to prevent that, but of course without the underlying trap for an excellent performance with three visits to predeclared turnpoints during the whole of the flight. I still have some problems looks like in defining a sharp statement for that. Let's put my current best shot into perspective by writing down the complete "amended" FAI rule as I see it now.

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed.

This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it.

Karel, NL


"Todd Pattist" > schreef in bericht ...
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote:
>
> >I think it's better to have no figures at all to prevent "yoyo-ing" but a
> >clear short statement without underlying traps.
> >May be my suggestion fulfils this.
>
> I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule. We
> already have a 3 TP max rule. Who cares if they come back
> to the same point and use a TP twice? To me, the only
> benefit of a "yo-yo" is if you get to use more than 3 TP's.
> As far as I can tell, the main effect of this rule is that
> it makes pilots flying badges on linear lift systems (ridges
> and waves) put one TP at each the end of the line, and one
> about 10 km from the end. I suppose that's slightly harder
> than flying the whole line of lift end to end, but not much.
>
> The rule is pretty well known for pilots flying near
> established ridge or wave systems, but otherwise acts as a
> trap, as in this case.
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)
"Todd Pattist" > schreef in bericht ...
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote:
>
> >I think it's better to have no figures at all to prevent "yoyo-ing" but a
> >clear short statement without underlying traps.
> >May be my suggestion fulfils this.
>
> I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule. We
> already have a 3 TP max rule. Who cares if they come back
> to the same point and use a TP twice? To me, the only
> benefit of a "yo-yo" is if you get to use more than 3 TP's.
> As far as I can tell, the main effect of this rule is that
> it makes pilots flying badges on linear lift systems (ridges
> and waves) put one TP at each the end of the line, and one
> about 10 km from the end. I suppose that's slightly harder
> than flying the whole line of lift end to end, but not much.
>
> The rule is pretty well known for pilots flying near
> established ridge or wave systems, but otherwise acts as a
> trap, as in this case.
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[K.P. Termaat]

Let's consider two declared turnpoints A and B. Without a rule a pilot can
claim a flight like Start - A - B - A - B - A - B - ...... Finish. He
visited two declared waypoints many times and came finally up with 1000 km.
Should not be possible of course, so a rule is required that limits the
number of visits to declared turnpoints up to the maximum of three for the
1.4.5.b. type of flight. The current FAI rule is not good enough though of
course.

If one can read from my proposal that it is allowed to visit each of the
three declared turnpoints three times, then my definition is not accurate
enough apparently. A bad night again.
Would the word "total" help out like: "In any sequence not more then a total
of up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed".

Karel
"Todd Pattist" > schreef in bericht
...
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote:
>
> >abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule completely would allow pilots to
declare just two turnpoints in the 1.4.5.b flight definition and fly back
and forth between them for ever to obtain a large distance suitable to be
awarded with the 1000 km FAI badge. This is not right of course.
>
> I agree it's not right to yo yo indefinitely, but I don't
> see how it would be allowed with the 10km language removed
> from the 1.4.5 rule. The rule already limits the pilot to 3
> TP's
>
>
> >
> >1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
> >b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
> >A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a
finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be
declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared
turnpoints may be claimed.
> >
> >This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it.
>
> That proposed rule looks like you can go three times to each
> of three TP's. You want each visit to a TP to count as one
> of the maximum of 3 TP's, so you allow the same TP to be
> declared twice (rather than the current 10km apart req't for
> 'nearby' TP's) - not declared once but visited twice (or
> three times).
>
>
> Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

[CV]

K.P. Termaat wrote:

> 1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
> b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
> A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a
> finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be
> declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared
> turnpoints may be claimed.
>
> This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it.

Well, you could change "not more then up to three visits" to
"no more than three visits" or "a maximum of three visits".

Also, this seems to leave open the possibility of rounding
the turnpoints in a different order than declared, and even
of skipping one declared turn point !? (You could declare
A-B-C and then fly A-B-A, or maybe even A-C-A, B-A-B, B-C-B,
C-A-C or C-B-C) Was that what you intended ? Or is this
covered somewhere else in the rules ?

It seem a little messy to talk about "visits". Why not just
treat TP3 as a different turn point than TP1, even if it
happens to be on the same spot on the map ?

BTW the rule about not having to declare the finish is interesting.
It would seem you can visit your declared TP or TP's (1 to 3) and
then basically treat the last leg as a free distance. Is that how
the rules stand today ?

Regards CV

[K.P. Termaat]

Ok, CV will change to "no more then three visits" and add "performance". Thanks. Amended 1.4.5.b then becomes:

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence, no more then three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance.

With this definition it is possible to declare three turnpoints and:
1. Visit no point at all i.e. make a free flight to a landing place
2. Visit one turnpoint and return home or land anywhere else
3. Visit two turnpoints and return home or land anywhere else
4. Visit three turnpoints and return home or land anywhere else.
5. The sequence in which declared turnpoints are visited is up to the pilot.
6. It is not possible to visit more then three turnpoints because of the "no more" rule. So "yoyo-ing" is not possible.

Your examples are correct. Since startpoint and finishpoint are no turnpoints a flight like S-A-S-B-F-C-F is legal in the original FAI rule (see the Code) and in my amended version (6 legs, i.e. and average of 160 km per leg for a 1000 km flight, so nothing wrong with that).
Usually a flight will be planned like S-A-B-C-F or S-A-B-A-F or the ones you indicate.
Turnpoints at the same spot are like identical twins; you can give them different names indeed.
The last part of the performance is basically free indeed.

Regards and thanks for your attention,

Karel, NL


"CV" > schreef in bericht ...
>
> K.P. Termaat wrote:
>
> > 1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
> > b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
> > A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a
> > finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be
> > declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared
> > turnpoints may be claimed.
> >
> > This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it.
>
> Well, you could change "not more then up to three visits" to
> "no more than three visits" or "a maximum of three visits".
>
> Also, this seems to leave open the possibility of rounding
> the turnpoints in a different order than declared, and even
> of skipping one declared turn point !? (You could declare
> A-B-C and then fly A-B-A, or maybe even A-C-A, B-A-B, B-C-B,
> C-A-C or C-B-C) Was that what you intended ? Or is this
> covered somewhere else in the rules ?
>
> It seem a little messy to talk about "visits". Why not just
> treat TP3 as a different turn point than TP1, even if it
> happens to be on the same spot on the map ?
>
> BTW the rule about not having to declare the finish is interesting.
> It would seem you can visit your declared TP or TP's (1 to 3) and
> then basically treat the last leg as a free distance. Is that how
> the rules stand today ?
>
> Regards CV
>

[Ian Strachan]

In article >, Todd Pattist
> writes

>I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule.

Quite. The KISS principle applies.

--
Ian Strachan
Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

[CV]

Todd Pattist wrote:
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote:
>
>>Let's consider two declared turnpoints A and B. Without a rule a pilot can
>>claim a flight like Start - A - B - A - B - A - B - ...... Finish. He
>>visited two declared waypoints many times and came finally up with 1000 km.
>
> I understand what you're saying, but I think he's made a
> flight with 6 TurnPoints. We should allow only 3 TP's to be
> declared, and if you want to visit one twice, then you
> declare it twice.

I agree. He rounded six turn points: TP1, TP2, TP3, ..., TP6.
Some of them just happened to be on the same spot on the map.
If he only declared two, then only the first two should count.

CV

[K.P. Termaat]

Hi Ian,

I would vote in favor also for abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule, but I think it has no chance at the next IGC meeting.
I agree with KISS; the current rules are much to complicated and moreover rules for badges and records are different and mixed up. What a mess. Very easy to fall in a trap as we did.

B.t.w. do you understand why the 1.4.5.b. rule at its end says "This course must be declared" while the rule says "in any sequence or not at all". I just don't understand (another trap?).

P.s. Our amendment will probably go for :

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence, no more then three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance.

Would like your opinion on that Ian (apart from abolishing the rule)

Regards,

Karel, NL



"Ian Strachan" > schreef in bericht ...
> In article >, Todd Pattist
> > writes
>
> >I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule.
>
> Quite. The KISS principle applies.
>
> --
> Ian Strachan
> Lasham Gliding Centre, UK

[K.P. Termaat]

Yes, that's it. So we must have a rule that no more then three visits to
(declared) turnpoints are allowed. That's the true intention of the flight
definition 1.4.5.b. A flight using up to three turnpoints. It doesn't matter
at all that one turnpoint is visited twice (the trap)

Karel, NL


"CV" > schreef in bericht
...
>
> Todd Pattist wrote:
> > "K.P. Termaat" > wrote:
> >
> >>Let's consider two declared turnpoints A and B. Without a rule a pilot
can
> >>claim a flight like Start - A - B - A - B - A - B - ...... Finish. He
> >>visited two declared waypoints many times and came finally up with 1000
km.
> >
> > I understand what you're saying, but I think he's made a
> > flight with 6 TurnPoints. We should allow only 3 TP's to be
> > declared, and if you want to visit one twice, then you
> > declare it twice.
>
> I agree. He rounded six turn points: TP1, TP2, TP3, ..., TP6.
> Some of them just happened to be on the same spot on the map.
> If he only declared two, then only the first two should count.
>
> CV
>

[ir. K.P. Termaat]

CV > wrote in message >...
> > On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:
> >>What do you think of a rule like:
> >>"In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can
> >>be claimed"
>
> Not really clear what is meant with that wording.
>
> But, if it is only about precluding excessive yo-yoing, wouldn't it
> be sufficient to just stipulate a maximum number of turnpoits, say
> three or four, regardless of the distance between them, or even if
> they coincide.
>
> CV

Hello again CV,
Indeed it's only about yo-yoing. I am against it as all of us I guess,
but do not like to hurt a sportif long flight from a bad description
of a rule to avoid it.
The maximum number of waypoints is already given in definition 1.4.5.b
of the flight: Distance using up to three turnpoints.
However "using up to three turnpoints" doesn't mean that the number of
visits that can be made to these turnpoints is also limited to three.
I gave already the example S-A-B-A-B-A-B-F, where only two turnpoints
are used but six visits to turnpoints are made. Flying back and forth
between A and B is yo-yoing. So this must be avoided.
My idea of a fair rule is "In any sequence no more then three visits
to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance" replacing
the "10 km /only once in any sequence or not at all" rule of the Code.
This latter does hardly service its purpose these days using GPS and
can have a disastrous effect on long sportif flights.
I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
course.

Karel, NL

[CV]

ir. K.P. Termaat wrote:
> The maximum number of waypoints is already given in definition 1.4.5.b
> of the flight: Distance using up to three turnpoints.
> However "using up to three turnpoints" doesn't mean that the number of
> visits that can be made to these turnpoints is also limited to three.

Well, that is exactly what it does mean, the way I read the
rule. Once you have rounded (or visited if you prefer) a
declared point you have used one of your turnpoints.
Do it three times and you have used up your three.

Clearly you read the rule differently.

> I gave already the example S-A-B-A-B-A-B-F, where only two turnpoints
> are used but six visits to turnpoints are made.

Well, myself and somebody else already commented on that example.

You see "visits" and "turn points" as different things while for
some of us they mean the same thing.

CV

[CV]

ir. K.P. Termaat wrote:
snip
> My idea of a fair rule is "In any sequence no more then three visits
> to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance" replacing
snip
> I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
> must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
> course.

Another thing:
Apart from understanding the existing rules in different ways I
totally support your effort. Your text is correct and understandable
to me, except for "then" which should be changed to "than".

Good luck with having the rule passed. It is about time that someone
did away with that 10 km rule which doesn't seem to serve any useful
purpose.

Cheers CV

[ir. K.P. Termaat]

CV > wrote in message >...
> ir. K.P. Termaat wrote:
> snip
> > My idea of a fair rule is "In any sequence no more then three visits
> > to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance" replacing
> snip
> > I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
> > must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
> > course.
>
> Another thing:
> Apart from understanding the existing rules in different ways I
> totally support your effort. Your text is correct and understandable
> to me, except for "then" which should be changed to "than".
>
> Good luck with having the rule passed. It is about time that someone
> did away with that 10 km rule which doesn't seem to serve any useful
> purpose.
>
> Cheers CV

Thanks CV. We are working hard on getting a perfect amendment. Not
easy though. However, thanks to people like you we expect to get rid
of a very nasty trap in the rules. Will change "then" to "than",
thanks.
Ian indicated that 1.4.3.c must amended at the same time. We will do
that too. Looks a little easier.
Thanks for your good wishes.

Karel, NL

[tango4]

Now what you need is an online petition with the details of several hundred
supporting pilots and you can get it to the IGC.

Ian

[Tom Serkowski]

"K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message >...
> Hi Ian,
>
> I would vote in favor also for abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule,
> but I think it has no chance at the next IGC meeting.
> I agree with KISS; the current rules are much to complicated and
> moreover rules for badges and records are different and mixed up. What a
> mess. Very easy to fall in a trap as we did.

The only major difference between badge and record flight is that for
badges, a triangle doesn't need to meet the min/max leg length, and
that one may use the turnpoint options that I expand on below. For
records, one must declare the exact task to be flown, unless going for
free distance, and that makes sense as that is part of the planning
process for the flight.

I'd like to see this change just a little so one could declare any
time before start instead of before takeoff. But that's for another
thread.

> B.t.w. do you understand why the 1.4.5.b. rule at its end says "This
> course must be declared" while the rule says "in any sequence or not at
> all". I just don't understand (another trap?).

I quote the key sentence in 1.4.5.b:

"The TURNPOINTS must be at least 10 km apart and may be claimed once,
in any sequence, or not at all."

Instead of "visit" the FAI says "claim". Your amendment is exactly
the same as the current rulle exept for the "10 km" part.

For a badge flight this 3 TP task lets the pilot declare 3 different
O&R flights or up to 3 triangles that may meet the badge requirement.
Then, once airborne the pilot can choose one of these tasks or may
just do a straight out. This is a valuable tool for the badge seeker
flying in an area where the weather makes it difficult to choose the
'right' task early in the day. It still requires the badge seeker to
declare the turnpoints to be used, requiring a bit more planning skill
thatn a totally free 3TP flight.

I agree the 10 km rule really should be eliminated as others have
mentioned how it doesn't have any aobvious justification. HOWEVER,
anyone who has even glanced at the rules, should be able to see this
limitation. The task is described in 3 sentences and the 10 km rule
is one of these.

> P.s. Our amendment will probably go for :
>
> 1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
> b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
> A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a
> finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be
> declared. In any sequence, no more then three visits to declared
> turnpoints may be claimed for the performance.

Tom Serkowski

[K.P. Termaat]

Hello Tom,

My reply in your text below.

Karel, NL

"Tom Serkowski" > schreef in bericht om...
> "K.P. Termaat" > wrote in message >...
> > Hi Ian,
> >
> > I would vote in favor also for abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule,
> > but I think it has no chance at the next IGC meeting.
> > I agree with KISS; the current rules are much to complicated and
> > moreover rules for badges and records are different and mixed up. What a
> > mess. Very easy to fall in a trap as we did.
>
> The only major difference between badge and record flight is that for
> badges, a triangle doesn't need to meet the min/max leg length,
This was so until last year I guess. AL4 applies now (see 1.4.6.b. referring to 1.4.3.d.) (Sorry, but I have started the study to be a lawyer in order to be able to read the Code (;-))

and
> that one may use the turnpoint options that I expand on below. For
> records, one must declare the exact task to be flown, unless going for
> free distance, and that makes sense as that is part of the planning
> process for the flight.
Correct, only the proud owner of a 1000 km distance badge has the option of using a free finishpoint. The pilots that goes for a ditance record must declare also the finishpoint.
>
> I'd like to see this change just a little so one could declare any
> time before start instead of before takeoff. But that's for another
> thread.
>
> > B.t.w. do you understand why the 1.4.5.b. rule at its end says "This
> > course must be declared" while the rule says "in any sequence or not at
> > all". I just don't understand (another trap?).
>
> I quote the key sentence in 1.4.5.b:
>
> "The TURNPOINTS must be at least 10 km apart and may be claimed once,
> in any sequence, or not at all."
>
> Instead of "visit" the FAI says "claim". Your amendment is exactly
> the same as the current rulle exept for the "10 km" part.
>
> For a badge flight this 3 TP task lets the pilot declare 3 different
> O&R flights or up to 3 triangles that may meet the badge requirement.
> Then, once airborne the pilot can choose one of these tasks or may
> just do a straight out. This is a valuable tool for the badge seeker
> flying in an area where the weather makes it difficult to choose the
> 'right' task early in the day. It still requires the badge seeker to
> declare the turnpoints to be used, requiring a bit more planning skill
> thatn a totally free 3TP flight.

My amendment will not change that; gives in fact more options such as an out and return as part of a larger task. So nothing wrong with that.
>
> I agree the 10 km rule really should be eliminated as others have
> mentioned how it doesn't have any aobvious justification. HOWEVER,
> anyone who has even glanced at the rules, should be able to see this
> limitation. The task is described in 3 sentences and the 10 km rule
> is one of these.
This is correct, however I am not very sensitive to rules from the past which have no meaning any more in our days of GPS where a spot on the ground (not even a tree) can be declared as a turnpoint. The "10 km / only once" rule doesn't serve any purpose these days except of being a trap for long sportif distance flights. That there should be a rule though in the Code to avoid "yo-yoing" (the reason for the current rule in the Code focussed on mountain ridges, clear markings on the ground and photo cameras).

>
> > P.s. Our amendment will probably go for :
> >
> > 1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
> > b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
> > A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a
> > finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be
> > declared. In any sequence, no more then three visits to declared
> > turnpoints may be claimed for the performance.

Due to interesting discussions like this one our current amendment looks like:

1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only
b. Distance using up to three turnpoints:
A flight from a START POINT via up to three declared TURN POINTS to a free FINISH POINT. For the performance no more than three visits to TURNPOINTS may be claimed in any sequence or not at all.

I think this proposal has many options to pilots for making sportif long x-country flight and be rewarded with a FAI badge and it excludes the possibility of "yo-yoing" without doubt.

Karel

>
> Tom Serkowski

[Denis]

ir. K.P. Termaat a écrit :

> I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
> must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
> course.

Hi Karel

I support your idea.

However there is no need to search for a perfect wording, because en
amendment takes 2 years to pass at IGC : the first year it is proposed
as a general idea, the second year as a effective modification of the
rule (only then a precise wording is to be proposed, and this will be
done most of the times by the sporting code specialist).

I don't know at all why there is this 10km rule. It is even more stupid
because, for a semantic reason (that "start point" and "finish point"
are not considerered as "turn points") the 2nd turn point may be the
same as start or finish point...

That said, you have to convince IGC delegates that the rule they have
voted and defended for years is so stupid, and this will be obviously
the more difficult, since there is very few turnover among IGC delegates
;-)

Therfore it might help to review the "free distance with 3 TP" in its
generality. Thus I would suggest to modify also the rule under which the
turn points *have to be declared* though it is a *free* distance and
though finish point (and, if release point, start point) *have not*.

With the anomaly that records may use undeclared turn point but not
badges, and the resulting complexity of the wording (free distances for
badges, free distances for records, etc.). And that every other type of
flight (i.e. straight distance, out and return, triangle), now, have
"declared" and "free" subtype that have each their separate records, but
"free distance with up to 3 TP" keep a "free" subtype for records, and a
"not so free" subtype for badges.

Another anomaly is that the "diamond goal" badge (a goal flight of 300
km - see 2.1.3.b) may *not* be a "straight distance to a goal" and that
the its non-goal version (the gold distance 2.1.2.a) may *not* use
undeclared turn points !

The logic would be that each type of flight (straight, O/R, triangle,
3TP) have each a "free" and "declared" subtype, and that "distance
flights" for badges, and that goal flights use "declared" subtype while
"non-goal" flights would use "free" subtype.

Whether Diplomas (e.g. 1000 km) would use "free" or "declared" subtypes,
or a combination of both, is still open to discussion, as is the
creation of a "declared distance with up to 3 TP" record type to balance
the new "free distance with up to 3 TP" acception.

--
Denis

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

[K.P. Termaat]

Thanks Denis for your support and your explanation of the procedure at IGC.
At the moment we are only after replacing the "10km / only once" limitation
in 1.4.5.b (and 1.4.3.c I guess) by a more sensible statement that does not
hurt long sportif x-country performances where an out and return is part of
the total performance.

In fact we support IGC's view of having a performance rule with an anti
yo-yo limitation in it, however the rule:
1. may not have an akward trap in it as a by-product
2. suppresses yo-yoing effectively,
3. allows Ray Lindskys type of flights in mountainous areas
4. allows Ronalds type of flights in rather flat areas
5. gives a lot of freedom to pilots to plan their 1-3 Tp flights

So we are not after more goals at the moment.

Thanks for the attention.

Karel, NL



"Denis" > schreef in bericht
...
> ir. K.P. Termaat a écrit :
>
> > I like to bring "my" rule as an amendment to the next IGC meeting, but
> > must be sure of its correct and easy understandable wordings of
> > course.
>
> Hi Karel
>
> I support your idea.
>
> However there is no need to search for a perfect wording, because en
> amendment takes 2 years to pass at IGC : the first year it is proposed
> as a general idea, the second year as a effective modification of the
> rule (only then a precise wording is to be proposed, and this will be
> done most of the times by the sporting code specialist).
>
> I don't know at all why there is this 10km rule. It is even more stupid
> because, for a semantic reason (that "start point" and "finish point"
> are not considerered as "turn points") the 2nd turn point may be the
> same as start or finish point...
>
> That said, you have to convince IGC delegates that the rule they have
> voted and defended for years is so stupid, and this will be obviously
> the more difficult, since there is very few turnover among IGC delegates
> ;-)
>
> Therfore it might help to review the "free distance with 3 TP" in its
> generality. Thus I would suggest to modify also the rule under which the
> turn points *have to be declared* though it is a *free* distance and
> though finish point (and, if release point, start point) *have not*.
>
> With the anomaly that records may use undeclared turn point but not
> badges, and the resulting complexity of the wording (free distances for
> badges, free distances for records, etc.). And that every other type of
> flight (i.e. straight distance, out and return, triangle), now, have
> "declared" and "free" subtype that have each their separate records, but
> "free distance with up to 3 TP" keep a "free" subtype for records, and a
> "not so free" subtype for badges.
>
> Another anomaly is that the "diamond goal" badge (a goal flight of 300
> km - see 2.1.3.b) may *not* be a "straight distance to a goal" and that
> the its non-goal version (the gold distance 2.1.2.a) may *not* use
> undeclared turn points !
>
> The logic would be that each type of flight (straight, O/R, triangle,
> 3TP) have each a "free" and "declared" subtype, and that "distance
> flights" for badges, and that goal flights use "declared" subtype while
> "non-goal" flights would use "free" subtype.
>
> Whether Diplomas (e.g. 1000 km) would use "free" or "declared" subtypes,
> or a combination of both, is still open to discussion, as is the
> creation of a "declared distance with up to 3 TP" record type to balance
> the new "free distance with up to 3 TP" acception.
>
> --
> Denis
>
> R. Parce que ça rompt le cours normal de la conversation !!!
> Q. Pourquoi ne faut-il pas répondre au-dessus de la question ?