"10km / only once" amendment

ir. K.P. Termaat a écrit :

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.

Hi Karel

I support your idea.

However there is no need to search for a perfect wording, because en
amendment takes 2 years to pass at IGC : the first year it is proposed
as a general idea, the second year as a effective modification of the
rule (only then a precise wording is to be proposed, and this will be
done most of the times by the sporting code specialist).

I don't know at all why there is this 10km rule. It is even more stupid
because, for a semantic reason (that "start point" and "finish point"
are not considerered as "turn points") the 2nd turn point may be the
same as start or finish point...

That said, you have to convince IGC delegates that the rule they have
voted and defended for years is so stupid, and this will be obviously
the more difficult, since there is very few turnover among IGC delegates
;-)

Therfore it might help to review the "free distance with 3 TP" in its
generality. Thus I would suggest to modify also the rule under which the
turn points *have to be declared* though it is a *free* distance and
though finish point (and, if release point, start point) *have not*.

With the anomaly that records may use undeclared turn point but not
badges, and the resulting complexity of the wording (free distances for
badges, free distances for records, etc.). And that every other type of
flight (i.e. straight distance, out and return, triangle), now, have
"declared" and "free" subtype that have each their separate records, but
"free distance with up to 3 TP" keep a "free" subtype for records, and a
"not so free" subtype for badges.

Another anomaly is that the "diamond goal" badge (a goal flight of 300
km - see 2.1.3.b) may *not* be a "straight distance to a goal" and that
the its non-goal version (the gold distance 2.1.2.a) may *not* use
undeclared turn points !

The logic would be that each type of flight (straight, O/R, triangle,
3TP) have each a "free" and "declared" subtype, and that "distance
flights" for badges, and that goal flights use "declared" subtype while
"non-goal" flights would use "free" subtype.

Whether Diplomas (e.g. 1000 km) would use "free" or "declared" subtypes,
or a combination of both, is still open to discussion, as is the
creation of a "declared distance with up to 3 TP" record type to balance
the new "free distance with up to 3 TP" acception.

--
Denis

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

Thanks Denis for your support and your explanation of the procedure at IGC.
At the moment we are only after replacing the "10km / only once" limitation
in 1.4.5.b (and 1.4.3.c I guess) by a more sensible statement that does not
hurt long sportif x-country performances where an out and return is part of
the total performance.

In fact we support IGC's view of having a performance rule with an anti
yo-yo limitation in it, however the rule:
1. may not have an akward trap in it as a by-product
2. suppresses yo-yoing effectively,
3. allows Ray Lindskys type of flights in mountainous areas
4. allows Ronalds type of flights in rather flat areas
5. gives a lot of freedom to pilots to plan their 1-3 Tp flights

So we are not after more goals at the moment.

Thanks for the attention.

Karel, NL



"Denis" schreef in bericht
...
ir. K.P. Termaat a écrit :

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.

Hi Karel

I support your idea.

However there is no need to search for a perfect wording, because en
amendment takes 2 years to pass at IGC : the first year it is proposed
as a general idea, the second year as a effective modification of the
rule (only then a precise wording is to be proposed, and this will be
done most of the times by the sporting code specialist).

I don't know at all why there is this 10km rule. It is even more stupid
because, for a semantic reason (that "start point" and "finish point"
are not considerered as "turn points") the 2nd turn point may be the
same as start or finish point...

That said, you have to convince IGC delegates that the rule they have
voted and defended for years is so stupid, and this will be obviously
the more difficult, since there is very few turnover among IGC delegates
;-)

Therfore it might help to review the "free distance with 3 TP" in its
generality. Thus I would suggest to modify also the rule under which the
turn points *have to be declared* though it is a *free* distance and
though finish point (and, if release point, start point) *have not*.

With the anomaly that records may use undeclared turn point but not
badges, and the resulting complexity of the wording (free distances for
badges, free distances for records, etc.). And that every other type of
flight (i.e. straight distance, out and return, triangle), now, have
"declared" and "free" subtype that have each their separate records, but
"free distance with up to 3 TP" keep a "free" subtype for records, and a
"not so free" subtype for badges.

Another anomaly is that the "diamond goal" badge (a goal flight of 300
km - see 2.1.3.b) may *not* be a "straight distance to a goal" and that
the its non-goal version (the gold distance 2.1.2.a) may *not* use
undeclared turn points !

The logic would be that each type of flight (straight, O/R, triangle,
3TP) have each a "free" and "declared" subtype, and that "distance
flights" for badges, and that goal flights use "declared" subtype while
"non-goal" flights would use "free" subtype.

Whether Diplomas (e.g. 1000 km) would use "free" or "declared" subtypes,
or a combination of both, is still open to discussion, as is the
creation of a "declared distance with up to 3 TP" record type to balance
the new "free distance with up to 3 TP" acception.

--
Denis

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