A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Soaring
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Racing airspace "violation" question



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #25  
Old September 10th 10, 02:45 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
John Cochrane[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 237
Default Racing airspace "violation" question

On Sep 10, 1:11*am, SoaringMaps Team wrote:
On Sep 9, 2:02*pm, "kirk.stant" wrote:



But it's not that simple. *How does the scorer know where you declared
your intention to abort? *The person that won the day was also
thinking of aborting at the first turn and followed a similar route
back to yours. Conditions then improved and he made a large detour to
get back toward the second turnpoint. *Maybe you would have done the
same thing. How would you have cancelled your intention to abort?


I think the FAI rules would have handled this situation just fine.
You would have been scores as landing out at the class C boundary and
the distance on that leg would have been scored as progress toward the
second turnpoint.


Andy


How does the scorer know where to score to if someone aborts
normally? *Doesn't the scoring program look for the farthest logger
point in the direction of the next turnpoint (that isn't actually
reached) to determine how to score distance, after it determines that
the task wasn't completed? *Then it would seem easy to not assess a
violation for any airspace incursion after that point is determined.
The scorer shouldn't have to do anything.


But I admit I'm assuming a lot about Winscore, so may very well be
completely wrong about this.


Kirk


I can definitely lay out some tasks in relation to restricted areas
(like Class C's) where the pilot would be required to backtrack away
from the next turnpoint (and home) to avoid the -100 point outcome if
s/he abandoned the task and elected to traverse the restricted area.
This would require careful piloting to ensure that your greatest
progress towards the next turnpoint was outside the restricted area.
To make this really obvious imagine that the second to last turn is
across a Class C from home and the last turn is a steering turn just
20 miles abeam of the finish. *You'd have to do some clever
trigonometry to figure out how to cross the Class C after making the
second to last turn in order to get home without making progress
towards the final turn within the restricted area.

9B


But this answer displays some of the wisdom of current policy. We
don't allow flight in or over class C because it would give a
competitive advantage to those having a transponder. Originally, it
seemed like "but the race is over, so there's no competitive
advantage" was a good argument. But in this and a previous example,
it's clear that being able to press on while keeping the option alive
to glide home over the class C is a definite competitive advantage.

Bottom line, though: Given the amount of complaining from many people
about complex rules, carving out an airspace exception to fly over
class C as "self retrieve" doesn't seem like a good idea.

For a non-sanctioned contest, make up your own rules and do whatever
you want.

If a sanctioned contest really wants to do this, they should apply for
a rules waiver. It might make sense at El Tiro given the very odd
geometry of the Tucson class C relative to El Tiro and the soaring
area. That lets you adapt rules to local conditions without us having
to write some nightmare into the rules that apply to everyone.

John Cochrane
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Fed: Planes flying in "commercial" airspace must get GPS Mxsmanic Piloting 66 June 4th 10 12:54 PM
(USA) US/Mexico "airspace" (boundary) files available Tuno Soaring 4 March 27th 10 07:17 PM
On Sharing airspace with "non-rated UAV "pilots" vaughn Piloting 15 March 15th 09 04:08 PM
"Fly Baby, you violated Class B Airspace" Ron Wanttaja Piloting 27 September 5th 07 08:30 PM
Aviation Conspiracy: Connecticut To Get "Creamed" By Airspace Redesign Change? Free Speaker General Aviation 0 August 8th 06 02:42 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.