Peter,

What was her altitude at the finish point? Now, be careful here.
If the finish point was the landing, when did she first enter the
"observation zone" of the finish point? Use the first GPS data point
in the observation zone as the "finish," not the point of landing.

I'm assuming from your very accurate number that this is
a GPS flight, right?

Anyway, maybe that will work. I dunno. Good luck!

P.S. One could perhaps do this to define the START point as
well. Good luck!

nyffeler wrote:


My question, is this decision really in terms of the sporting code?

Ok, the definitions a
DURATION 1.2.6 The time elapsed between the START TIME and the FINISH TIME.
FINISH TIME 1.2.4 The time that the SOARING PERFORMANCE finishes.
SOARING PERFORMANCE 1.1.1 The performance during that portion of a glider
flight from the START POINT to the FINISH POINT.
FINISH POINT 1.1.12 The WAY POINT marking the end of a SOARING PERFORMANCE. It
is:
a. The point at which the nose of the glider comes to rest without external
assistance after landing, or
b. A WAY POINT declared as the FINISH POINT or goal, or
c. The midpoint of a FINISH LINE, or
d. The point at which an MoP is started.

So the decision of the NAC was ok, because the altitude loss between release
and landing was 1083m, 83m to much.
However, if she would have started an MoP just bevor crossing the 1000m limit
the flight must have been accepted.

Is this not stupid?

Peter Nyffeler
(OO soaring club zurich)


--

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