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