3 tps and 10 km

[Ian Molesworth]

Karel your proposal wording still does not quite work!

For example someone could declare Start - A - B - A - Finish where start and
finish are the same as TP B ( or just 10 metres away from B ) - its a double
out and return, a yo-yo!

you still need to seperate any waypoints ( TP's or start and finish ) by 10
km ( or some figure ) and then it starts to get messy 'cos you can't have
the start and finish at the same place!

Ian

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/2004


__________________________________________________ ________________
This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email

************************************************** **********************
The opinions expressed in this email represent those of the individual and not necessarily those of Alliance UniChem plc. The contents of the email may be privileged and confidential. If received in error please advise the sender then delete from your system. If you are not the intended recipient you should not copy it or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any person.
Alliance UniChem plc cannot accept liability for any damage you incur as a result of virus infection.
************************************************** **********************


__________________________________________________ ____________________

[K.P. Termaat]

Hi Ian,

Startpoints and a finish points are no turn points and may be at any
position under the current rule and in my proposal. This will not change and
in fact I am not after that. I am after changing the unreasonable side
effect of the "10 km apart" restriction that when one returns to a first
turn point hundreds of km's later (806 km in the referenced case) the yo-yo
rule applies and currently ruines the performance. My "no more than three
visits" restriction has no effect on this type of flight (in fact a single
out and return with a nod in it) and still has the same effect on "yo-yoing"
as before.

Karel

[K.P. Termaat]

Hi again Ian,

Yes you are right. Turnpoint B can be at any location. A task Start - A -
B - A - Finish is an out and return with a nod in it at turnpoint B. Nothing
wrong with that I guess.
One may locate turnpoint B very near to or at the location of the Start or
Finishpoint since these points are no turnpoints. Then, Start - A - B - A -
Finish is still an out and return with a nod at turnpoint B, however the
trajectory looks like a double out and return (a yo-yo indeed).
However my intention is to allow turnpoints be selected from the list of up
to three turnpoints in any sequence and more than once since than a long
sportif out and return with a nod in it (as in the reference case) is not
hurt by the unreasonable requirement that turnpoint A may not be visited a
second time after hundreds of kilometers flown. Yo-yoing is out of the
question in these types of flights. The current restriction in the rules do
not allow this, my amendment does indeed allow this.

Best regards,

Karel, NL

"Ian Molesworth" > schreef in
bericht ...
> Karel your proposal wording still does not quite work!
>
> For example someone could declare Start - A - B - A - Finish where start
and
> finish are the same as TP B ( or just 10 metres away from B ) - its a
double
> out and return, a yo-yo!
>
> you still need to seperate any waypoints ( TP's or start and finish ) by
10
> km ( or some figure ) and then it starts to get messy 'cos you can't have
> the start and finish at the same place!
>
> Ian
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.766 / Virus Database: 513 - Release Date: 17/09/2004
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ________________
> This email has been scanned by the MessageLabs Email Security System.
> For more information please visit http://www.messagelabs.com/email
>
> ************************************************** **********************
> The opinions expressed in this email represent those of the individual and
not necessarily those of Alliance UniChem plc. The contents of the email may
be privileged and confidential. If received in error please advise the
sender then delete from your system. If you are not the intended recipient
you should not copy it or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents
to any person.
> Alliance UniChem plc cannot accept liability for any damage you incur as a
result of virus infection.
> ************************************************** **********************
>
>
> __________________________________________________ ____________________
>
>
>

[Denis]

K.P. Termaat wrote:

> Yo-yoing is out of the question in these types of flights.

I think there is some misunderstanding here... This type of flight *is*
widely referred to as a yoyo. I suppose what you want to avoid is yoyo
with multiple or too short legs, not yoyo itself...



--
Denis

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

[ir. K.P. Termaat]

Denis > wrote in message >...
> K.P. Termaat wrote:
>
> > Yo-yoing is out of the question in these types of flights.
>
> I think there is some misunderstanding here... This type of flight *is*
> widely referred to as a yoyo. I suppose what you want to avoid is yoyo
> with multiple or too short legs, not yoyo itself...

Yes Denis, you are right. I like to avoid multi yo-yo's without
hurting long flights which are in fact O&R's with a single nod
(waypoint) in it. I recently noticed a yo-yo in your terms rewarded
with the 1000km FAI badge.

Karel, NL