Dan wrote:
I sincerely wish that those doing such flights do it for the fact of earthrounding itself, and not in any recognition of being the wealthier, most sponsored… or youngest. Youngest only rimes with having the least experience, certainly not conductive in achieving a safe flight.
For other means of transportation the “youngest” category has been officially repealed. The reason for this is twofold:
- At least in sailing it has led to an unhealthy race to send younger and younger children onto that trip where one could seriously ask the question how much of that is really the will of the child doing the trip
- All of the recent records and record attempts are massive team efforts. The pilot in the plane is only one of many people that contribute to the success – and sometimes not even the most important one. If one would reasonably define a “youngest” category, it should relate to the a verge age of the team – not to the one pilot.
But let’s take the current attempt at what it is: A pilot fulfills her dream to fly around the world. She might not have been able to finance it without declaring it as some kind of record attempt – therefore she does. Nothing wrong about it.
When I do my round the world attempt, I might well create a media hype around the “youngest obese man” who did it… ;-)
I see flight progressing towards Taiwan, real progress in the last few days. Am sure this pilot is using her judgment and applying common sense, hence waiting for good conditions.
Malibuflyer wrote:
When I do my round the world attempt, I might well create a media hype around the “youngest obese man” who did it… ;-)
ROFL! What an idea. I could top that with obese in a Mooney :) Hmm, maybe I should open a Patreon for this.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Hmm, maybe I should open a Patreon for this.
I promise I’ll chip in!
Sam_Rutherford wrote:
The guidelines are universal
I would say they are not. “In one direction” means it has to be done west or east, not north or south 
North to south will include two directions.
Also:
The participant must pass through two approximate antipodal points during the attempt. For
exact antipodal points the co-ordinates north and south are the same, whilst that east plus that
west equals 180°. However, for this event an allowance of 5° difference in total is permitted
5 degrees around the poles is not a long distance, while 5 degree at equator is a considerable distance.
Obviously geometry/navigation is too difficult for Guinnes
My ‘universal’ was with regard to the mode of transport.
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with the second part – they have simply defined that there is some flex available in the antipodal calculation for those attempting to use (or not) as they see fit. This ‘flex’ is obviously greatest for degrees of longitude on the equator or degrees of latitude at all locations.
Sam_Rutherford wrote:
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with the second part
It’s not a “point”. I’m just surprised of such an odd definition. Why not simply define an area with a center point and a radius of X nm/km? That surely is the most intuitive definition one can think regardless, and the slack is the same everywhere.
I think someone flew 360• over arctic and antarctic in a. RV. That should count as round-the-world.
LeSving wrote:
Why not simply define an area with a center point and a radius of X nm/km? That surely is the most intuitive definition one can think regardless, and the slack is the same everywhere.
In times of GPS- Navigation it might be – in times of traditional navigation where these rules were made it is not, as position was measured in lat/long with equipment that had basically angular error.
And yes it is unfair for those who plan to have their antipodal points close to the poles – but if you fly this rout you might want to cross the poles anyways and therefore the 5deg allowed difference doesn’t practically matter – esp. these days where position measurement is much more accurate. Maoraigh wrote:
I think someone flew 360• over arctic and antarctic in a. RV. That should count as round-the-world.
It would have if it had been one round the world flight and not two flights with one “round the northern hemisphere” to the north pole and another one to the South Pole
Malibuflyer wrote:
In times of GPS- Navigation it might be – in times of traditional navigation where these rules were made it is not, as position was measured in lat/long with equipment that had basically angular error
It’s the same no matter what kind of navigation you use. Judging by the text, it is not the accuracy of navigation that matters, but the absolute position of geographical points, like two cities for instance (that you can visit by road/sea/air/foot). Known geographical points obviously have known geographical positions. Two antipodal landmarks (as cities), are seldom exact antipodal points. IMO it is rather mind boggling how someone can come up with such a definition of the slack that shall be used
Besides, polar navigation is not very exact. Compass is useless for instance.
