By Joey Dart on
Discipline
PG and HG XC
What do we want ?
My idea 💡 is to add a new dimension to gps turnpoints - height.

That would create a sphere
Then using this tool, tasks can be designed
To stop pilots flying low and fast over terrain.

Climbing is a skill in flying
More than pushing bar is.
Flying is three dimensional
Why not make racing 3D also.
It will make more creative and safer racing.

Let’s celebrate altitude gains as a racing strategy.

The difference between this or a low level no fly zone is the difference between encouraging safe tactics
And punishing unsafe ones

Imagine the stress in a low gaggle thats just about to bust the low hieght limit..
the bun fight would be dangerous.

If people are low, they’re just slow is the safest.

It’s moving racing more into alinement with safe cross country flying.

How do we achieve that ?
GPS points with altitude
As a tool to set tasks

Balloons in the sky to pop
Fast pilots fly up amd away from terrain

So simple.
Issue category :
task setting
9 in favour | 5 against

Comments

By christiaandurrant on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 10:56

I agree that low altitude needs to be more of a focus than it currently is. We penalise for flying up into airspace when there is close to zero risk of an accident (until > 150m in) and reward pilots for flying below reserve altitude (which we mandate they must carry). This is an interesting proposal worthy of discussion and trial.

2 in favour | 0 against
By Mateusz Gajczewski on Wed, 22 Oct 2025 - 10:58

In my opinion:
+ Some turnpoints could have a minimum altitude requirement for safety reasons - for example, over highly urbanized areas or near cable cars.
+ Instruments already show the estimated altitude at the turnpoint, so we have electronic support for that.
But:
+/- What if we don’t have enough altitude to reach the turnpoint? Searching for lift nearby could mean a time-costly delay. On the other hand, it could add an interesting twist - a bit like a low final glide, but in the middle of the task, and in the middle of the sky.
- We don’t trust altitude readings as much as we trust 2D GPS position.

3 in favour | 0 against
By Frazzled on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 20:56

"The difference between this or a low level no fly zone is the difference between encouraging safe tactics
And punishing unsafe ones"

I guess that's more a question of a glass half full vs. half empty perspective, stick or carrot, it would achieve the same - but I prefer your positive incentive for AGL clearance approach, as we discussed elsewhere.

But there is a "but": given your current description of spherical TPs (& assuming it's possible for our flight computers to do the maths efficiently & quickly), unless you also change the historically typical spacing of TPs in a comp (I think in the British-Dutch Open Ager in '23, we had two @30km apart), people are still going to ridge run the big stretches in between. So unless I have misunderstood, you only partly solve the problem with spherical TPs...

In another thread, you described it as "popping balloons in the air", instead of picking up TP cylinders.

It put the image of a pilot as Pac-Man gobbling up points on the way around a maze, so what if there was mesh of imaginary balloons (or better, cylinders with generous ground clearance) between TPs? These "breadcrumbs" would be optional, but if you don't "eat" any between TPs, you only score 50% of the distance points for that leg; if you pick up say 5 breadcrumbs between each TP, you add 10% for each, so eating 5 between TPs scores you 100% distance points for that leg.

In effect, flying Pac-Man style, acts like a multiplier on the main course distance, while still setting TP-style tasks as today.

It also allows task setters to set great TPs - we still want the joy of 100+km tasks, right? - but also allows them to incentivise pilots away from known / likely problem areas by not laying down +10% breadcrumbs in those areas. You can still incentivise alternative route choices (flats vs hills) by putting alternative trails of breadcrumbs down.

1 in favour | 0 against
By Markos Siotos on Thu, 23 Oct 2025 - 21:30

It is an interesting idea, even though I feel it will be hard to be implemented in all TP's on a task.

But, there is "One particular TP" that it can be implemented increasing safety all the times.

And this is the... "GOAL" I will not give any numbers, but you get the idea. If we have a Goal altitude that a reserve throw is still possible (say 100 m) perhaps the fatality in Brazil, and the accident in Ager, could have had a more favorable outcome...

Again, we are brainstorming in here, I do not "suggest" something out of a "strong conviction" or anything...

By Frazzled on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 00:45

Markos, I wasn't there, but I think the fatality in Brazil happened when the pilot was on final approach to land, so no longer racing, with the goal field in the lee of some hills.

By Joey Dart on Fri, 24 Oct 2025 - 08:35

Yes, add as many turnpoints as needed.
I wasn’t clear about that, Pac man style is exactly how it was in my mind.

To coax pilots away from the terrain.
Maybe one every 5km, it would have to be tested to know how many work
But certainly not limited to the number we have at present.

PAC man is a great image of it.

By Fabien Zado on Wed, 29 Oct 2025 - 09:51

For HG, it could be really interesting to have the last turnpoint to a certain altitude so you don't have people going on final glides too low and end up in a lake like in Ager by example. It will not solve all the problems but could help for sure. You can not predict a strong valley brise or sinking areas along the glides...

And accurante altitudes can be a problem, GPS, baro ? How to make sure they are precise ?