11.2.2.1

Quote
A11.2.2.1 ...
The landing card must reflect the flight actually accomplished, even
in the case where claiming a shorter flight might be in the pilot's
best interest. A deliberate violation of this rule could be considered
unsportsmanlike conduct.
Unquote

If the intent here is only to preclude deliberately helping to cancel
or devalue the day, then this certainly should not apply to not
claiming TP's along the way which would invalidate the pilot's flight.
Examples might be exceeding 11 TP's, as you mention, or a TP which
winds up being a repeated TP. To claim the invalid TP's would be to
claim a "shorter" flight in the scoring sense anyway.

The issue I see is that in quaint olden days the starts and finishes
were fixed and known to the ground, so the pilot's longest (in
distance) task was his fastest task. The pilot would never be
contributing to devaluation or cancellation by reporting the subset of
his flight giving the best scoring speed. Also, a pilot could not
discard a later start and revert to a previous start and use some TP's
made before and some TP's made after the final start to get a better
distance.

But now:

What if his best attempt in one flight is complete, but grossly
undertime? This could cause devaluation under Rule 11.5.4. Must he
claim the maximum possible distance and/or time from the combination
of turnpoints reached in two attempts he never intended as a single
task attempt, even if it produces a slower scoring speed? An
unintended valid TP may even have been reached following an unintended
valid start with no intention of even being on course, must he claim
this under 11.2.2.1?

What if a pilot starts, gets a TP, gets slow, comes back without
landing, takes another start (an entirely new attempt he thinks) and
lands out short of minimum distance. Should he claim the maximum
possible distance from the combination of turnpoints reached in two
attempts he never intended as a single task attempt? Does good
sportsmanship require it? Do the rules require it?

Jonathan Gere 34

(Erik mann) wrote in message . com...
(John Cochrane) wrote in message . com...

However, as far as I can tell, you CAN call your first passage the
"finish" for scoring purposes if you're willing to take the land-out
risk. For example, if you try another turnpoint in a MAT but then turn
around and land home, or even if you make it but it gives you a slower
time overall, nothing stops you from calling the first passage a
"finish."


I agree with John' interpretation, and I think the way you accomplish
this is based on the contents of the landing card. Using the MAT
example for a second, if we have a task with: Start, Turn 1, Turn 2
assigned and assuming the pilot completes Turns 1 and 2, then the
options for the next CLAIMED point a

- Finish
- Turn 3

If the landing card says the pilot claims Finish (irrespective of
whether the trace shows he actually made Turn 3), then the scorer is
obligated to score the flight that way. As long as he was within the
limits of the Finish Cylinder, I see no reason why that isn't
legitimate. If the landing card says the pilot claims Turn 3, then
that's how it is scored. It's not unlike the old PST where you might
take a picture of a turnpoint as you went by it "just in case". You
might opt not to include it if you were going to exceed your 11
turnpoints, for example.

HOWEVER, rule 11.2.2.1 says that the landing card shall "accurately
reflect the flight that the pilot completed". As I recall, the intent
of that rule was to prevent someone from intentionally under-reporting
their flight in order to cancel out a day. That's certainly how I
would interpret this rule if I were on the Contest Competition
Committee (3.1.4).

As far as radio usage is concerned, the Appendix to the rules makes it
clear that the radio finish calls are for safety or nostalgia only
"Pilots and gate personnel should understand that the radio call... is
now mostly for show"

No?

P3