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

"10km / only once" amendment



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old June 16th 04, 09:10 PM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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  
Old June 17th 04, 12:53 AM
Mike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 17th 04, 06:47 AM
tango4
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 17th 04, 08:58 AM
K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 17th 04, 02:08 PM
CV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 19th 04, 07:28 AM
ir. K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 20th 04, 10:43 PM
CV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old June 21st 04, 02:28 PM
CV
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


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  
Old June 21st 04, 09:13 PM
ir. K.P. Termaat
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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  
Old June 30th 04, 02:40 AM
Denis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

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

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
Instructors: is no combat better? ArtKramr Military Aviation 103 March 13th 04 10:07 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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:28 PM.


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