Judy Ruprecht wrote:
At 02:42 24 August 2004, Mark James Boyd wrote:

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.

A Finish Point OTHER than landing would have to have
been declared before flight, as would a Start Point
other than tow release. This would be unusual for a
duration flight without a concurrent cross country
claim.

When using declared Start and/or Finish Points, it's
usually advantageous for distance and duration purposes
to determine Start Altitude from the lowest data point
in the Start OZ and Finish Altitude based on the highest
data point in the Finish OZ for the 'Loss of Height'
calculations. For Speed tasks, best speed is achieved
using a Start/Finish line, defaulting to a Start/Finish
OZ only if necessary for Loss of Height purposes.

And finally, the Sporting Code provides for Loss of
Height to be measured either of two ways: Start Altitude
less Finish Altitude (per 1.2.8) OR Release Altitude
less Finish Site elevation (per 1.4.7).

Judy

I'm confused. Are you saying if the finish point
is declared as a point, rather than "landing", it
has an OZ.

But if the finish point is "landing" then there is no OZ?

Hmmm...I don't see this in the SC. A Way Point, including a
Finish Point, is defined by grid coordinates, not
altitude. The altitude is determined from a recorded
point in the OZ, which is "a 90 degree sector...
symmetrical to and remote from the inbound leg."

I can't see anything at all which prevents a pilot from circling an
airport of intended landing, passing through what will soon become
the OZ, and then landing on the runway, and using the highest
point in the instant OZ as the finish altitude.

I don't see why one must chose 1.1.11(a) as the finish.
Instead the landing is the finish point, and 1.1.11(b)
(a point in the OZ) can be the finish.

Don't get me wrong, if she didn't go into the OZ of her own
landing (like a straight in instead) then this is all moot,
right? But she certainly has a leg, and an OZ for the start
and finish points, so I can't see how it differs from the
declared idea Judy presented.

I'm not saying I'm right (clearly I am WRONG, at least in the USA,
since this has evidently come up before), but I don't see the
wording that prohibits it...

And especially in light of Eric's comment, it
certainly seems fairer to have it be this way,

Otherwise everyone will buy a tiny, very noisy model motor and prop
and turn it on right before landing :PPP
--

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