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. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"10km / only once" amendment
Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other
respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the true intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way. I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His flight can be seen at http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...hp?ref3=119825 The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly flat country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the "10 km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot be granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a still larger flight rather then a "yoyo". Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to achieve a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in wave or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent that such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely out of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it. Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart / only once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a great performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points" (1.4.5.b. of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a turn point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not at all I guess. What do you think of a rule like: "In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in 1.4.5.b. of the Code. Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we like to give it a ''best shot". Regards, Karel Termaat, NL |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote:
Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the true intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way. I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His flight can be seen at http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...hp?ref3=119825 The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly flat country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the "10 km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot be granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a still larger flight rather then a "yoyo". Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to achieve a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in wave or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent that such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely out of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it. Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart / only once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a great performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points" (1.4.5.b. of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a turn point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not at all I guess. What do you think of a rule like: "In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in 1.4.5.b. of the Code. Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we like to give it a ''best shot". While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/ lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1 hour ago. Mike Ka8 (non-contest MU) M-ASA |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why not say 'for tasks up to 300km in length the turnpoints must be 10km
apart and may not be used more than once' Ian "Mike" wrote in message news On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote: Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the true intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way. I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His flight can be seen at http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...hp?ref3=119825 The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly flat country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the "10 km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot be granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a still larger flight rather then a "yoyo". Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to achieve a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in wave or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent that such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely out of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it. Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart / only once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a great performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points" (1.4.5.b. of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a turn point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not at all I guess. What do you think of a rule like: "In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in 1.4.5.b. of the Code. Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we like to give it a ''best shot". While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/ lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1 hour ago. Mike Ka8 (non-contest MU) M-ASA |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
I think it's better to have no figures at all to prevent "yoyo-ing" but a
clear short statement without underlying traps. May be my suggestion fulfils this. Karel "tango4" schreef in bericht ... Why not say 'for tasks up to 300km in length the turnpoints must be 10km apart and may not be used more than once' Ian "Mike" wrote in message news On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 20:10:53 +0000, K.P. Termaat wrote: Thanks to people like Ian, Robert, Herbert, Jack, Ruud, Janos and other respectable guys, I am very much convinced now that it cannot be that an excellent 1000 km performance is japordized by an FAI rule of which the true intention has been fulfilled in a very convincing way. I am talking again about the 1000 km performance of Ronald Termaat. His flight can be seen at http://www.onlinecontest.de/olcphp/2...hp?ref3=119825 The pilot visited the first turnpoint of his 1000 km flight also as his third turnpoint after having flown a distance of over 800 km in mainly flat country and about 7.5 hrs later. "Yoyo-ing" is what FAI says since the "10 km apart / only once rule" applies and so the 1000 km FAI badge cannot be granted. To my opinion there is much more truth in saying that we are talking here about a prestigious 800 km "out and return" as part of a still larger flight rather then a "yoyo". Flying back and forth several times between two nearby turnpoints to achieve a large distance is not very sportif I guess, especially when done in wave or along a mountain ridge. So there should be a rule indeed to prevent that such a performance is rewarded with a respectable FAI badge. However the rule should be clever enough to avoid that when "yoyo-ing" is completely out of the question, a great performance is still japordized by it. Is it difficult to have better wordings for a rule then "10 km apart / only once" to avoid "yoyo-ing" and not having the desastrous effect on a great performance in a "distance flight using up to three turn points" (1.4.5.b. of the Code). Not at all to my opinion. The intention of "up to three turnpoints" in the flight definition is that no more then three times a turn point should be visited. Difficult to capture that in a simple rule; not at all I guess. What do you think of a rule like: "In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints can be claimed" replacing the "10 km apart / only once " rule given in 1.4.5.b. of the Code. Please give your comments; we are preparing an amendment for the next meeting of IGC to have this disastrous rule changed. And of course we like to give it a ''best shot". While I don't have my Silver distance yet (I've only been soaring for about 30 years) I'll comment on this anyway. While doing 800K and revisiting a turnpoint I'd say that quite a few hours has elapsed so the weather conditions have most probably changed, thermal sources have come and gone, wind has shifted or changed strength, visability/ lighting has changed. The revisited turnpoint isn't really the same as it was the first time there. How about making the rule include some elapsed time between visits, say 2, 3, or even 4 hours. Heck on my short local flights I can't go back to a thermal I've been to only 1 hour ago. Mike Ka8 (non-contest MU) M-ASA |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ir. K.P. Termaat wrote: 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. Well, that is exactly what it does mean, the way I read the rule. Once you have rounded (or visited if you prefer) a declared point you have used one of your turnpoints. Do it three times and you have used up your three. Clearly you read the rule differently. 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. Well, myself and somebody else already commented on that example. You see "visits" and "turn points" as different things while for some of us they mean the same thing. CV |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ir. K.P. Termaat wrote: snip 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 snip 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. Another thing: Apart from understanding the existing rules in different ways I totally support your effort. Your text is correct and understandable to me, except for "then" which should be changed to "than". Good luck with having the rule passed. It is about time that someone did away with that 10 km rule which doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Cheers CV |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
CV wrote in message ...
ir. K.P. Termaat wrote: snip 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 snip 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. Another thing: Apart from understanding the existing rules in different ways I totally support your effort. Your text is correct and understandable to me, except for "then" which should be changed to "than". Good luck with having the rule passed. It is about time that someone did away with that 10 km rule which doesn't seem to serve any useful purpose. Cheers CV Thanks CV. We are working hard on getting a perfect amendment. Not easy though. However, thanks to people like you we expect to get rid of a very nasty trap in the rules. Will change "then" to "than", thanks. Ian indicated that 1.4.3.c must amended at the same time. We will do that too. Looks a little easier. Thanks for your good wishes. Karel, NL |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 ? |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Instructors: is no combat better? | ArtKramr | Military Aviation | 103 | March 13th 04 09:07 PM |
L.A. Times -- Request and Amendment | Blueskies | Home Built | 0 | August 11th 03 02:35 AM |
L.A. Times -- Request and Amendment | Blueskies | Piloting | 0 | August 11th 03 02:35 AM |