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
|
|||
|
|||
You are absolutely right Todd and the way of thinking of CV is o.k. too. There is nothing wrong with visiting a first waypoint of a flight a second time after hundreds of kilometers and many hours later, especially in a flat country like NL.
But abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule completely would allow pilots to declare just two turnpoints in the 1.4.5.b flight definition and fly back and forth between them for ever to obtain a large distance suitable to be awarded with the 1000 km FAI badge. This is not right of course. So there must be a rule to prevent that, but of course without the underlying trap for an excellent performance with three visits to predeclared turnpoints during the whole of the flight. I still have some problems looks like in defining a sharp statement for that. Let's put my current best shot into perspective by writing down the complete "amended" FAI rule as I see it now. 1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only b. Distance using up to three turnpoints: A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed. This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it. Karel, NL "Todd Pattist" schreef in bericht ... "K.P. Termaat" wrote: 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. I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule. We already have a 3 TP max rule. Who cares if they come back to the same point and use a TP twice? To me, the only benefit of a "yo-yo" is if you get to use more than 3 TP's. As far as I can tell, the main effect of this rule is that it makes pilots flying badges on linear lift systems (ridges and waves) put one TP at each the end of the line, and one about 10 km from the end. I suppose that's slightly harder than flying the whole line of lift end to end, but not much. The rule is pretty well known for pilots flying near established ridge or wave systems, but otherwise acts as a trap, as in this case. Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) "Todd Pattist" schreef in bericht ... "K.P. Termaat" wrote: 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. I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule. We already have a 3 TP max rule. Who cares if they come back to the same point and use a TP twice? To me, the only benefit of a "yo-yo" is if you get to use more than 3 TP's. As far as I can tell, the main effect of this rule is that it makes pilots flying badges on linear lift systems (ridges and waves) put one TP at each the end of the line, and one about 10 km from the end. I suppose that's slightly harder than flying the whole line of lift end to end, but not much. The rule is pretty well known for pilots flying near established ridge or wave systems, but otherwise acts as a trap, as in this case. Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Let's consider two declared turnpoints A and B. Without a rule a pilot can
claim a flight like Start - A - B - A - B - A - B - ...... Finish. He visited two declared waypoints many times and came finally up with 1000 km. Should not be possible of course, so a rule is required that limits the number of visits to declared turnpoints up to the maximum of three for the 1.4.5.b. type of flight. The current FAI rule is not good enough though of course. If one can read from my proposal that it is allowed to visit each of the three declared turnpoints three times, then my definition is not accurate enough apparently. A bad night again. Would the word "total" help out like: "In any sequence not more then a total of up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed". Karel "Todd Pattist" schreef in bericht ... "K.P. Termaat" wrote: abolishing the "10 km / only once" rule completely would allow pilots to declare just two turnpoints in the 1.4.5.b flight definition and fly back and forth between them for ever to obtain a large distance suitable to be awarded with the 1000 km FAI badge. This is not right of course. I agree it's not right to yo yo indefinitely, but I don't see how it would be allowed with the 10km language removed from the 1.4.5 rule. The rule already limits the pilot to 3 TP's 1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only b. Distance using up to three turnpoints: A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed. This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it. That proposed rule looks like you can go three times to each of three TP's. You want each visit to a TP to count as one of the maximum of 3 TP's, so you allow the same TP to be declared twice (rather than the current 10km apart req't for 'nearby' TP's) - not declared once but visited twice (or three times). Todd Pattist - "WH" Ventus C (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
K.P. Termaat wrote: 1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only b. Distance using up to three turnpoints: A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed. This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it. Well, you could change "not more then up to three visits" to "no more than three visits" or "a maximum of three visits". Also, this seems to leave open the possibility of rounding the turnpoints in a different order than declared, and even of skipping one declared turn point !? (You could declare A-B-C and then fly A-B-A, or maybe even A-C-A, B-A-B, B-C-B, C-A-C or C-B-C) Was that what you intended ? Or is this covered somewhere else in the rules ? It seem a little messy to talk about "visits". Why not just treat TP3 as a different turn point than TP1, even if it happens to be on the same spot on the map ? BTW the rule about not having to declare the finish is interesting. It would seem you can visit your declared TP or TP's (1 to 3) and then basically treat the last leg as a free distance. Is that how the rules stand today ? Regards CV |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ok, CV will change to "no more then three visits" and add "performance". Thanks. Amended 1.4.5.b then becomes:
1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only b. Distance using up to three turnpoints: A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence, no more then three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed for the performance. With this definition it is possible to declare three turnpoints and: 1. Visit no point at all i.e. make a free flight to a landing place 2. Visit one turnpoint and return home or land anywhere else 3. Visit two turnpoints and return home or land anywhere else 4. Visit three turnpoints and return home or land anywhere else. 5. The sequence in which declared turnpoints are visited is up to the pilot. 6. It is not possible to visit more then three turnpoints because of the "no more" rule. So "yoyo-ing" is not possible. Your examples are correct. Since startpoint and finishpoint are no turnpoints a flight like S-A-S-B-F-C-F is legal in the original FAI rule (see the Code) and in my amended version (6 legs, i.e. and average of 160 km per leg for a 1000 km flight, so nothing wrong with that). Usually a flight will be planned like S-A-B-C-F or S-A-B-A-F or the ones you indicate. Turnpoints at the same spot are like identical twins; you can give them different names indeed. The last part of the performance is basically free indeed. Regards and thanks for your attention, Karel, NL "CV" schreef in bericht ... K.P. Termaat wrote: 1.4.5. Distance performance for badges only b. Distance using up to three turnpoints: A flight from a startpoint via up to three declared turnpoints to a finishpoint . If the finishpoint is the landing place it need not be declared. In any sequence not more then up to three visits to declared turnpoints may be claimed. This is it. Cannot find anything wrong. Please shoot at it. Well, you could change "not more then up to three visits" to "no more than three visits" or "a maximum of three visits". Also, this seems to leave open the possibility of rounding the turnpoints in a different order than declared, and even of skipping one declared turn point !? (You could declare A-B-C and then fly A-B-A, or maybe even A-C-A, B-A-B, B-C-B, C-A-C or C-B-C) Was that what you intended ? Or is this covered somewhere else in the rules ? It seem a little messy to talk about "visits". Why not just treat TP3 as a different turn point than TP1, even if it happens to be on the same spot on the map ? BTW the rule about not having to declare the finish is interesting. It would seem you can visit your declared TP or TP's (1 to 3) and then basically treat the last leg as a free distance. Is that how the rules stand today ? Regards CV |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Todd Pattist
writes I'd be in favor of just abolishing the 10 km rule. Quite. The KISS principle applies. -- Ian Strachan Lasham Gliding Centre, UK |
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 |