h3. Proposal fro

JosÃ© Luis Esteban, Spanish Delegate.

h3. Proposal title

Spot landing scoring

h3. Existing text

*Annex 4*

*2.C1 SPOT LANDING*

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.

\[...\]

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) x 250/350 with a maximum score of 250.

*2.C3 POWERED PRECISION LANDING*

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.

\[...\]

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) x 250/350 with a maximum score of 250.

h3. New text

{panel}

*Annex 4*

*2.C1 SPOT LANDING*

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.

\[...\]

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) -x 250/350- with a {color:#ff0000}hypothetical{color} maximum score of -250- {color:#ff0000}350{color}.

*2.C3 POWERED PRECISION LANDING*

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.

\[...\]

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) -x 250/350- with a {color:#ff0000}hypothetical{color} maximum score of -250- {color:#ff0000}350{color}.

{panel}

h3. Reason

The wording for the scoring formula is misleading. Some believe it has to be normalised and others don't. That is probably the reason why the scores in some championships are further normalised to give 250 points to the best pilot, and the fraction 250/350 simply doesn't appear in the formula.

So there are two problems:

* If the scores +are not+ normalised to 250, then no pilot would ever get 250 points as long as nobody will ever land in less than 1 m

* If the scores +are+ normalised to 250, then some pilot would get 250 points, even in a case where all pilots are very bad and the best one lands on the 100 pt strip and barely manages to stop in the deck.

This proposal has three effects:

* To simplify and clarify the scoring system

* To make the scoring always absolute, an individual value independent from what other pilots achieve, as it happens when the stopping distance is not measured.

* To increase the task value to 350, accounting for the fact that a short stop is inherently more difficult than simply stopping in the deck.

JosÃ© Luis Esteban, Spanish Delegate.

h3. Proposal title

Spot landing scoring

h3. Existing text

*Annex 4*

*2.C1 SPOT LANDING*

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.

\[...\]

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) x 250/350 with a maximum score of 250.

*2.C3 POWERED PRECISION LANDING*

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.

\[...\]

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) x 250/350 with a maximum score of 250.

h3. New text

{panel}

*Annex 4*

*2.C1 SPOT LANDING*

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down with the ground (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.

\[...\]

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) -x 250/350- with a {color:#ff0000}hypothetical{color} maximum score of -250- {color:#ff0000}350{color}.

*2.C3 POWERED PRECISION LANDING*

The score will be the value of the strip in which both main wheels touch down (PS) plus the distance between the finish of the deck and the closest wheel, scored 1 point per whole metre (PD). Touching down on a dividing line scores the higher of the two strips.

\[...\]

Thus the score calculation will be (PS + PD) -x 250/350- with a {color:#ff0000}hypothetical{color} maximum score of -250- {color:#ff0000}350{color}.

{panel}

h3. Reason

The wording for the scoring formula is misleading. Some believe it has to be normalised and others don't. That is probably the reason why the scores in some championships are further normalised to give 250 points to the best pilot, and the fraction 250/350 simply doesn't appear in the formula.

So there are two problems:

* If the scores +are not+ normalised to 250, then no pilot would ever get 250 points as long as nobody will ever land in less than 1 m

* If the scores +are+ normalised to 250, then some pilot would get 250 points, even in a case where all pilots are very bad and the best one lands on the 100 pt strip and barely manages to stop in the deck.

This proposal has three effects:

* To simplify and clarify the scoring system

* To make the scoring always absolute, an individual value independent from what other pilots achieve, as it happens when the stopping distance is not measured.

* To increase the task value to 350, accounting for the fact that a short stop is inherently more difficult than simply stopping in the deck.